Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=01.07.2010&Aktenzeichen=17674%2F02
Timestamp: 2019-02-22 13:33:29
Document Index: 673678726

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 3', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 34', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 37', 'Art. 37', 'Art. 38', 'Art. 38', 'Art. 28', 'Art. 28', 'Art. 41', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 38', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 34', '§ 299', '§ 167', '§ 69', '§ 251', '§ 310', '§ 310', '§ 105', '§ 67', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 310', '§ 105', '§ 101', '§ 97', '§ 112', '§ 507', '§ 117', '§ 332']

EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17674/02, 39081/02 - dejure.org
EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17674/02, 39081/02
Art. 3, Art. ... 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 13+8, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 28, Art. 28 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 13+3 MRK
Preliminary objection dismissed (struck out of the list) Struck out of the list Violation of Art. 38-1-a Preliminary objection dismissed (exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violations of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 13+3 Violation of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 34 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)
EGMR, 15.01.2007 - 17674/02
The Court reiterates that Article 38 commands the respondent State to submit the requested material in its entirety, if the Court so requests, and properly to account for any missing elements (see Enukidze and Girgvliani v. Georgia, no. 25091/07, §§ 299-300, 26 April, and Davydov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02, § 167 et seq., 1 July 2010).
As the Court held in Melnik v. Ukraine (no. 72286/01, § 69, 28 March 2006) and further reiterated in Davydov and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02, § 251, 1 July 2010), the status of such a prosecutor under domestic law, his proximity to prison officials with whom he supervised the relevant prisons on a daily basis, and his integration into that prison system did not offer adequate safeguards such as to ensure an independent and impartial review of prisoners" allegations of ill-treatment on the part of prison officials.
However, the Court has held in other contexts that this investigative procedure does not comply with the principles of an effective remedy, because the enquiring officer can take only a limited number of procedural steps within that procedure while a victim's procedural status is not properly formalised (see Davydov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02, §§ 310-312, 1 July 2010).
However, the Court has previously held in various contexts that this investigative procedure does not comply with the principles of an effective remedy, in particular because the enquiring officer can take only a limited number of procedural steps within that procedure (see, for example, Davydov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02, §§ 310-12, 1 July 2010; Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, § 105, 26 July 2012; and Yevgeniy Petrenko v. Ukraine, no. 55749/08, § 67, 29 January 2015).
17674/02 and 39081/02, §§ 101-108, 1 July 2010.
Relevant Council of Europe and other material establishing standards for conditions of detention can be found in the judgment in the case of Davydov and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02, §§ 101-103, 1 July 2010).
EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 10543/03
LEONOV v. UKRAINE
The Court has already pointed out the shortcomings of such inquiries (see Davydov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02, §§ 310-12, 1 July 2010, and Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, § 105, 26 July 2012).
EGMR, 14.01.2016 - 38771/05
RODZEVILLO v. UKRAINE
Relevant Council of Europe and other materials establishing standards for the conditions of detention, together with international reports concerning the conditions of detention in Ukraine, can be found in the Court's judgments in the cases of Davydov and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02, §§ 101-108, 1 July 2010) and Gorbatenko v. Ukraine (no. 25209/06, §§ 97-98, 28 November 2013).
The relevant provisions of the Code can be found in the judgment in the case of Davydov and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02, § 112, 1 July 2010).
EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 65025/01
BIRZNIEKS c. LETTONIE
La Cour rappelle que l'article 34 confère aux requérants un droit de nature procédurale bien distincte des droits matériels énoncés au titre I de la Convention, et que la question de recevabilité ne se pose pas sur le terrain de cette disposition (voir, parmi d'autres, Chamaïev et autres c. Géorgie et Russie, no 36378/02, § 507, CEDH 2005-III, Al-Moayad c. Allemagne (déc.), no 35865/03, § 117, 20 février 2007, et Davydov et autres c. Ukraine, nos 17674/02 et 39081/02, § 332, 1er juillet 2010).
EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 3466/09
ZALEVSKIY v. UKRAINE
EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 75345/01
YATSENKO v. UKRAINE
EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 37240/07
KIYASHKO v. UKRAINE
EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 30075/06