Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CHUPRYNA v. UKRAINE

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  CHUPRYNA v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (2)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 40512/13

  ANTONOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 876/16

  Other relevant principles determined by the Court in its case-law as regards Article 3 of the Convention and in respect of medical treatment in detention are summarised in the case of Sergey Antonov v. Ukraine (no. 40512/13, §§ 70-75, 22 October 2015).
• EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 43374/02

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 876/16

  The Court has emphasised on a number of occasions that a lack of appropriate medical care in detention may amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, §§ 112-22, 29 November 2007; Ukhan, cited above, §§ 77-83; and Petukhov v. Ukraine, no. 43374/02, §§ 91-98, 21 October 2010).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 21164/20

  RUTAR AND RUTAR MARKETING D.O.O. v. SLOVENIA

  In more recent cases relied on by the Government, the Constitutional Court rejected the constitutional complaints finding that the proposal for the exceptional consideration for inadmissible complaint was not well-founded (U-I-189/16, Up-876/16 of 20 February 2020; U-I-139/16, Up-671/16 of 14 February 2020; and U-I-132/19, Up-467/19 of 9 September 2019) or that the conditions under section 55.a (3) had not been fulfilled (U-I-11/17, Up-60/17 of 10 January 2020, and U-I-34/16, Up-126/16 of 12 September 2019).
• EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 1976/13

  IVASHCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  Having regard to the unexplained delay of at least five years in carrying out the applicant's surgery in respect of the hydrocele, and the absence of any documented regular supervision of his condition, the Court considers that the medical care provided to the applicant cannot be regarded as adequate (compare Chupryna v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 876/16, §§ 39 and 42, 29 January 2019, and Beketov v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 44436/09, §§ 114 and 116, 19 February 2019).
• EGMR, 03.12.2020 - 6433/18

  SOKOLOVSKYY CONTRE L'UKRAINE ET 2 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  876/16.