Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=18.06.2015&Aktenzeichen=10705/12
Timestamp: 2019-05-22 03:59:39
Document Index: 164352757

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 3', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', '§ 107', '§ 107', '§ 53']

EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 10705/12 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2015,13797
EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 10705/12 (https://dejure.org/2015,13797)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.06.2015 - 10705/12 (https://dejure.org/2015,13797)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. Juni 2015 - 10705/12 (https://dejure.org/2015,13797)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,13797) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (englisch)
Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 2728/16
ROSTOVTSEV v. UKRAINE
In particular, on 6 July 2015 the Supreme Court quashed the applicant's conviction and remitted the case for retrial following the Chopenko v. Ukraine judgment (no. 17735/06, 15 January 2015), on 9 November 2015 following Yaremenko v. Ukraine (no. 2) (no. 66338/09, 30 April 2015), and Zhyzitskyy v. Ukraine (no. 57980/11, 19 February 2015) judgments, on 30 November 2015 following Ogorodnik v. Ukraine judgment (no. 29644/10, 5 February 2015), on 21 December 2015 following Ushakov and Ushakova v. Ukraine judgment (no. 10705/12, 18 June 2015), and on 6 February 2017 following Zyakun v. Ukraine judgment (no. 34006/06, 25 February 2016).
In the circumstances of the case, the presence of a lawyer at the actual time of the applicant's original confession on 30 June 2003 does not of itself rule out the possibility that the applicant could have been ill-treated prior to his contact with the lawyer and remained fearful of the police, given that he remained under their control (compare Ushakov and Ushakova v. Ukraine, no. 10705/12, § 107, 18 June 2015).
In the circumstances of the case, the presence of a lawyer at the actual time of the applicant's original confession on 22 July 2010 does not of itself rule out the possibility that the applicant could have been ill-treated prior to his contact with the lawyer and remained fearful of the police at the time of the interview, given that he remained under their control (compare Ushakov and Ushakova v. Ukraine, no. 10705/12, § 107, 18 June 2015, and Zyakun, cited above, § 53).
(b) Was the fairness of the trial undermined by the admission as evidence of the applicant's statements allegedly obtained in breach of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Ushakov and Ushakova v. Ukraine, no. 10705/12, 18 June 2015)?.