CtEDO 30.01.2020 Auto

CASE OF SUKACHOV v. UKRAINE

RESPONDENT
UKR
HOTĂRÂRE
30.01.2020
Pe scurt
Instanță
CtEDO
Concluzie
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46 - Pilot judgment;Systemic problem;General measures (pilot judgment));Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
RĂSFOIEȘTE: CtEDO · 2020
DESCARCĂ: PDF · DOCX 🔒 Pro
Citează această cauză
CASE OF SUKACHOV v. UKRAINE (CtEDO, 2020)
HUDOC · oficial

Rezistarea inadmisibilă (Art. 35) Criterii de admisibilitate;(Art. 35-3-a) Pronunțarea articolului 3 - Interzicerea torturii (art. 3 - Tratament degradant);Încălcarea articoluluiui 13+3 - Dreptul la un remediu eficace (art. 13 - Remediare eficace) (art. 3 - Interzicerea torturii;Degradarea tratamentului); Statul pârât pentru a lua măsuri de caracter general (art. 46 - Hotărârea pilot;Problema sistemică; Măsuri generale (judecarea pilotului)); Prejudiciu moral - constatarea unei încălcări suficiente (art. 41 - Prejudiciu moral;Satisfacție echitabilă); Prejudiciu moral - atribuire (art. 41 - Prejudiciu moral;Dar satisfacție)

§ Cauze similare

Grupate prin similitudine semantică

5 cauze
CtEDO 2020-01-30
1,00
CASE OF SUKACHOV v. UKRAINE - [Ukrainian Translation] by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article
CtEDO 2020-01-30
0,99
Sukachov v. Ukraine
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article
CtEDO 2020-01-30
0,99
Sukachov c. Ukraine
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article
CtEDO 2020-01-30
0,99
CASE OF SUKACHOV v. UKRAINE - [Spanish Translation] by the Spanish Ministry of Justice
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article
CtEDO 2019-03-12
0,97
CASE OF PETUKHOV v. UKRAINE (No. 2)
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - P
Sursă