Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
NEVMERZHITSKY v. UKRAINE
Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
Violation of Art. 3 (on account of torture and degrading treatment) Violation of Art. 5-1-c Violation of Art. 5-3 (on account of the lack of prompt judicial review of the applicant's continued pre-trial detention and the length of his overall detention) Failure to ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
NEVMERJITSKI c. UKRAINE [Extraits]
Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
Violation de l'art. 3 (à raison des tortures et traitements dégradants) Violation de l'art. 5-1-c Violation de l'art. 5-3 (à raison de l'absence de contrôle juridictionnel rapide du maintien du requérant en détention provisoire et de la durée totale de sa ...
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 29.01.2003 - 54825/00
- EGMR, 25.11.2003 - 54825/00
- EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00
- EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 54825/00
Wird zitiert von ... (61) Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- VerfG Brandenburg, 25.08.2010 - VfGBbg 11/10
Ablehnung des Antrags auf Erlass einer eA die darauf gerichtet ist, Träger …
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00
12/10/2005. - EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83
HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00
Il incombe pourtant à la Cour de s'assurer que la nécessité médicale a été démontrée de manière convaincante (Herczegfalvy c. Autriche, arrêt du 24 septembre 1992, série A no 244, p. 26, § 82). - EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89
KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00
Dans l'hypothèse où il y a eu une procédure interne, il n'entre pas dans les attributions de la Cour de substituer sa propre vision des faits à celle des cours et tribunaux internes auxquels il appartient en principe de peser les données recueillies par eux (Klaas c. Allemagne, arrêt du 22 septembre 1993, série A no 269, p. 17, § 29).
- EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95
McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00
La Cour a conscience du caractère subsidiaire de son rôle et doit se montrer prudente avant d'assumer celui de tribunal de première instance appelé à connaître des faits, lorsque ce n'est pas rendu inévitable par les circonstances particulières d'une affaire (voir, par exemple, McKerr c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 28883/95, 4 avril 2000). - EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94
ORHAN v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00
La Cour réitère que pour l'appréciation des éléments de preuve, elle se rallie au principe de la preuve « au-delà de tout doute raisonnable'(Orhan c. Turquie, no 25656/94, § 264, 18 juin 2002). - EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96
ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00
Dans une autre affaire, la Commission a estimé que les allégations d'un requérant selon lesquelles il avait été soumis à un mauvais traitement alors qu'il était alimenté de force lors de sa grève de la faim étaient dénuées de fondement, puisque le requérant n'avait pas prouvé que la manière dont il avait été nourri de force équivalait à un acte de torture, à une peine ou un traitement inhumains ou dégradants (Ilijkov c. Bulgarie, no 33977/96, décision de la Commission du 20 octobre 1997, non publiée).
- BVerfG, 24.07.2018 - 2 BvR 309/15
Fixierung in psychiatrischer Unterbringung: Richtervorbehalt erforderlich?
a) Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte misst die Fixierung psychisch Kranker an Art. 3 der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention (EMRK) (vgl. EGMR , Jalloh v. Germany, Urteil vom 11. Juli 2006, Nr. 54810/00, §§ 79, 106; EGMR, Wiktorko v. Poland, Urteil vom 31. März 2009, Nr. 14612/02, § 55), der ein absolutes Verbot von Folter und unmenschlicher oder entwürdigender Behandlung beinhaltet (vgl. EGMR , Labita v. Italy, Urteil vom 6. April 2000, Nr. 26772/95, § 119; EGMR , Kudla v. Poland, Urteil vom 26. Oktober 2000, Nr. 30210/96, § 90; stRspr), das unabhängig vom Verhalten des Betroffenen besteht (vgl. EGMR, Raninen v. Finland, Urteil vom 16. Dezember 1997, Nr. 152/1996/771/972, § 55; EGMR , Labita v. Italy, Urteil vom 6. April 2000, Nr. 26772/95, § 119; EGMR , Kudla v. Poland, Urteil vom 26. Oktober 2000, Nr. 30210/96, § 90; EGMR, Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, Urteil vom 5. April 2005, Nr. 54825/00, § 79; stRspr). - EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17674/02
DAVYDOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
The lack of timely explanations provided by the Government as to the absence of these witnesses is a matter of concern for the Court; it delayed the hearing of oral evidence in the case and thus impeded the due processing of the applications, which might be regarded, to some extent, as a failure to comply with the State's obligation to furnish all necessary facilities to make possible a proper and effective examination of applications (see, mutatis mutandis, Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 75, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)).The Court reiterates that the parties are obliged to comply with its evidential requests and instructions, and provide timely information on any obstacles in complying with them and provide any reasonable or convincing explanations for such a failure (see Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 77, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)).
The Court recalls that it has already found that Article 55 of the Constitution did not possess the necessary effectiveness for a complaint under Article 5 of the Convention, as it is of a very general nature and did not provide specific redress for the allegations (see Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 54825/00, 25 November 2003).
The Court notes that the established domestic standards were far below recommendatory standards established by the CPT for Ukraine, which set at least 4 m² of living space per prisoner as a desirable occupancy rate for the multiple occupancy prison cells or dormitories (see Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 66, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)).
(c) failure to provide proper medical treatment and assistance to detained applicants (see, Koval v. Ukraine, no. 65550/01, § 81, 19 October 2006; Melnik, cited above, § 106; Mikhaniv v. Ukraine, no. 75522/01, § 74, 6 November 2008; and Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 106, ECHR 2005-II (extracts);.
- EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 55508/07
Massaker von Katyn
The parties are obliged to comply with its evidential requests and instructions, provide timely information on any obstacles in complying with them and provide any reasonable or convincing explanations for failure to comply (see Davydov and Others, cited above, § 174; Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 77, ECHR 2005-II (extracts); and Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 210, Series A no. 25).
- EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01
MELNIK v. UKRAINE
As to the Government's first suggestion, that a complaint be lodged with the public prosecutor who is responsible for supervising the general lawfulness of the enforcement of judgments in criminal cases, the Court finds that this cannot be considered an effective and accessible remedy, given that the prosecutor's status under domestic law does not offer adequate safeguards for an independent and impartial review of the applicant's complaints (see the judgments in Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, § 63, 30 March 2004; mutatis mutandis, Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 116, ECHR 2005-... (extracts), and Salov v. Ukraine, no. 65518/01, § 58, 6 September 2005).It therefore rejects the applicant's claim for pecuniary damage (compare and contrast Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 142, ECHR 2005-... (extracts)).
- EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 72126/14
CEESAY v. AUSTRIA
The relevant provisions of September 1992 "Malta Declaration", the version in force at the relevant time, can be found in Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 69, ECHR 2005-II (extracts).This could be seen from the fact that the first examination had been carried out by the police doctor directly after Y.C."s announcement of his hunger strike and that the ensuing daily medical check-ups had continued until his death (contrast Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, §§ 103-104, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)).
- EGMR, 06.11.2006 - 7697/02
LEE v. UKRAINE
The relevant domestic law and practice in relation to the applicant's complaints under Article 3 and 5 of the Convention are cited in the judgment of Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine (no. 54825/00, §§ 54 and 60, ECHR 2005-... (extracts)).- that my complaints under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of detention (the size of cell and the number of persons in it, the bedding and hygienic conditions, ventilation, nutrition, daily walks, etc.) raise an issue similar to the one in which the Court has found a violation of Article 3 in the case of Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine (no. 54825/00, §§ 86 - 88, ECHR 2005-... (extracts));.
- the applicant's complaints under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention (the size of cell and the number of persons in it, the bedding and hygienic conditions, ventilation, nutrition, daily walks, etc.) raise an issue similar to the one in which the Court has found a violation of Article 3 in the case of Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine (no. 54825/00, §§ 86 - 88, ECHR 2005-... (extracts));.
- EGMR, 22.06.2010 - 10921/03
GAVRILITA c. ROUMANIE
En tout état de cause, rien dans le dossier, ni aucun rapport du Comité européen pour la prévention de la torture (« CPT ") n'atteste qu'à l'époque des faits les conditions de vie dans le centre de détention de Poarta Alba se caractérisaient par une insalubrité, absence des conditions d'hygiène ou un dépassement de la capacité d'hébergement de la cellule pour pouvoir affirmer que cela ait pu influer d'une manière négative sur l'état de santé ou le bien-être du requérant (cf. à contrario Ghavtadze c. Georgie, no 23204/07, § 93, 3 mars 2009 et Nevmerjitsky c. Ukraine, no 54825/00, § 87, CEDH 2005-II (extraits)).[11] Voir Melnik c. Ukraine et Nevmerjitski c. Ukraine (no 54825/00, CEDH 2005-II, § 87).
- EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 65550/01
KOVAL v. UKRAINE
The relevant extracts from the reports are cited in the judgment of Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine (no. 54825/00, §§ 60-61 and 66, ECHR 2005-II).They relied in that connection on the Court's partial inadmissibility decision in the case of Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine (no. 54825/00, 28 January 2003).
- EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 2570/04
KUCHERUK v. UKRAINE
Articles 148 (purpose of and grounds for taking preventive measures), 149 (list of preventive measures), 150 (circumstances that should be taken into account in choosing a preventive measure) and 156 (time-limits for holding in custody) of the CCrP are to be found in the Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine judgment (no. 54825/00, § 53, ECHR 2005).Moreover, the manner in which the applicant is subjected to the measure in issue should not go beyond the threshold of a minimum level of severity envisaged by the Court's case law under Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 94, ECHR 2005).
- EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 28825/02
BUGLOV v. UKRAINE
Other relevant domestic law in respect of the applicant's complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention is summarised in the judgments of Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine (no. 54825/00, §§ 53-61, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)), and Kaverzin v. Ukraine (no. 23893/03, §§ 44-45, 15 May 2012).As regards the opportunity to challenge the prosecutor's detention order in court, it is to be noted that in the admissibility decision of 25 November 2003 in the case of Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine (no. 54825/00) the Court held that this remedy was ineffective in respect of complaints under Article 5 § 3 about the length of pre-trial detention.
- EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 4785/02
MIRONENKO AND MARTENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 23893/03
KAVERZIN v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 73175/10
Hungerstreikende Gefangene: Zwangsernährung und Patientenrechte
- EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 5310/71
IRELAND v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 19.06.2007 - 12066/02
CIORAP v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03
PICHUGIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 70923/01
JURJEVS c. LETTONIE
- EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 37138/06
FARHAD ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 68059/13
V.K. v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 14092/06
CIORAP c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA (N° 4)
- EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 1555/04
ZAKHARKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 2585/06
DANILOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 20602/05
GERASHCHENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 31720/02
TITARENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 16984/04
BELYAEV AND DIGTYAR v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 68476/10
SCHUCHTER c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 40107/02
KHARCHENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 43374/02
PETUKHOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 33470/03
ANTIPENKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 17283/02
YELOYEV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 13.11.2006 - 40107/02
KHARCHENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 11871/05
HADADE v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 4634/04
OSYPENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 14475/03
BILYY v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 5797/05
RUDENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 37789/05
PLESHKOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 34211/04
ROMAN MIROSHNICHENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 75522/01
MIKHANIV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 22.05.2007 - 1291/03
VOLOSYUK v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 9414/13
SOKIL v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 34778/04
TUDOSE c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 05.04.2012 - 37645/10
LUTSENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 49122/07
KRAVCHENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 11930/09
OLEYNIKOVA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 17650/02
GAVAZHUK v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 03.03.2009 - 23204/07
GHAVTADZE c. GEORGIE
- EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 30628/02
UKHAN v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 75522/01
MIKHANIV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 35231/02
SVERSHOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 03.04.2007 - 34211/04
MIROSHNICHENKO AND GORYUNENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 16.02.2017 - 40464/05
ARTUR PARKHOMENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 13579/09
RAZVYAZKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.12.2011 - 5203/09
KONDRATYEV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 18541/04
KUZMENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 33099/08
KOZHOKAR v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16505/02
DORONIN v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 13.12.2007 - 39458/02
TKACHEV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 29.05.2007 - 6692/02
POZHARSKYY v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16447/04
NIKOLAY KUCHERENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 7324/02
KOBTSEV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 06.03.2007 - 7715/02
ÖZGÜL c. TURQUIE
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 54825/00, 63727/11, 16984/04, 52652/07, 3299/05, 38771/05, 7193/04, 24710/06, 18041/08, 9450/06, 4772/06, 3001/06, 9207/09, 24107/13, 24392/06, 44807/10, 68183/10, 45811/16, 15825/06, 31720/02, 45947/06, 13448/07, 43374/02, 4725/13, 5212/13, 40512/13, 372 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
NEVMERZHITSKY CONTRE L'UKRAINE ET 33 AUTRES AFFAIRES
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises pour l'exécution de l'engagement auquel a été subordonnée la solution de l'affaire (französisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
NEVMERZHITSKY AGAINST UKRAINE AND 33 OTHER CASES
Information given by the government concerning measures taken for the execution of the undertakings attached to the solution of the case (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 29.01.2003 - 54825/00
- EGMR, 25.11.2003 - 54825/00
- EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00
- EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 54825/00, 63727/11, 16984/04, 52652/07, 3299/05, 38771/05, 7193/04, 24710/06, 18041/08, 9450/06, 4772/06, 3001/06, 9207/09, 24107/13, 24392/06, 44807/10, 68183/10, 45811/16, 15825/06, 31720/02, 45947/06, 13448/07, 43374/02, 4725/13, 5212/13, 40512/13, 372
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 25.11.2003 - 54825/00 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
NEVMERZHITSKY v. UKRAINE
Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 29.01.2003 - 54825/00
- EGMR, 25.11.2003 - 54825/00
- EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00
- EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 54825/00
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (7)
- EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88
Jens Söring
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2003 - 54825/00
However, the Court has consistently stressed that the suffering and humiliation involved must in any event go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment or punishment (see, mutatis mutandis, Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 April 1978, Series A no. 26, p. 15, § 30; Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 39, § 100; V. v. the United Kingdom cited above, § 71). - EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2003 - 54825/00
However, the Court has consistently stressed that the suffering and humiliation involved must in any event go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment or punishment (see, mutatis mutandis, Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 April 1978, Series A no. 26, p. 15, § 30; Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 39, § 100; V. v. the United Kingdom cited above, § 71). - EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99
Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2003 - 54825/00
However, it may take into account the fact that by 11 September 1997 the applicant had already been in custody for five months and three days (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 111, ECHR 2002-VI; Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, no. 48553/99, §§ 56-58, ECHR 2002-VII).
- EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75
DEWEER c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2003 - 54825/00
In other words, whether a remedy exists that could answer his complaints by providing a direct, speedy, and not merely indirect, protection of the rights guaranteed in the Convention (see Deweer v. Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 16, § 29). - EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2003 - 54825/00
It prohibits in absolute terms inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, among many other authorities, V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 69, ECHR 1999-IX, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV). - EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64
Wemhoff ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2003 - 54825/00
The Court first recalls that, in determining the length of detention pending trial under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the period to be taken into consideration begins on the day the accused is taken into custody and ends on the day when the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance (see, Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, p. 23, § 9). - EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94
Mord an James Bulger
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2003 - 54825/00
It prohibits in absolute terms inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, among many other authorities, V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 69, ECHR 1999-IX, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 29.01.2003 - 54825/00 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 29.01.2003 - 54825/00
- EGMR, 25.11.2003 - 54825/00
- EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00
- EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 54825/00