Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BELOUSOV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Belousov v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (18)

• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04

  S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 4494/07

  The wording "in accordance with the law" requires the impugned measure both to have some basis in domestic law and to be compatible with the rule of law (S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 95, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 4494/07

  The Court reiterates that any interference under the paragraph one of Article 8 must be justified in terms of the paragraph two as being "in accordance with the law" and "necessary in a democratic society" for one or more of the legitimate aims listed therein (see, among many other authorities, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84, and Saviny v. Ukraine, no. 39948/06, § 47, 18 December 2008).
• EGMR, 27.10.1994 - 18535/91

  KROON AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 4494/07

  The essential object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary interference by public authorities (see among many other authorities Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1994, § 31, Series A no. 297-C).

 
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 4494/07

  The Court notes that it has already ruled in some cases that awards in relation to costs and expenses can be paid directly into the accounts of the applicants" representatives (see, for example, ToÄ?cu v. Turkey, no. 27601/95, § 158, 31 May 2005; Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 175, ECHR 2005-VII; Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts) and Carabulea v. Romania, no. 45661/99, § 180, 13 July 2010).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 4494/07

  The Court notes that it has already ruled in some cases that awards in relation to costs and expenses can be paid directly into the accounts of the applicants" representatives (see, for example, ToÄ?cu v. Turkey, no. 27601/95, § 158, 31 May 2005; Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 175, ECHR 2005-VII; Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts) and Carabulea v. Romania, no. 45661/99, § 180, 13 July 2010).
• EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 45661/99

  CARABULEA v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 4494/07

  The Court notes that it has already ruled in some cases that awards in relation to costs and expenses can be paid directly into the accounts of the applicants" representatives (see, for example, ToÄ?cu v. Turkey, no. 27601/95, § 158, 31 May 2005; Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 175, ECHR 2005-VII; Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts) and Carabulea v. Romania, no. 45661/99, § 180, 13 July 2010).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 4494/07

  The Court reiterates that where an individual, when taken into police custody, is in good health, but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 4494/07

  According to the Court's case-law, in order to determine whether there has been a deprivation of liberty, the starting point must be the specific situation of the individual concerned, and account must be taken of a whole range of factors arising in a particular case, such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question (see Guzzardi v. Italy, judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, p. 33, § 92).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 4494/07

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as lying with the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 4494/07

  While promptness has to be assessed in each case according to its special features (see, among other authorities, Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 48, ECHR 1999-III), the strict time constraint imposed by this requirement of Article 5 § 3 leaves little flexibility in interpretation, otherwise there would be a serious weakening of a procedural guarantee, to the detriment of the individual and at risk of impairing the very essence of the right protected by this provision (see, for example, McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 33, ECHR 2006-X, and Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, no. 42310/04, § 214, 21 April 2011).
• EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77

  VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

  Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 22947/93

  AKKOC v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04

  NECHIPORUK AND YONKALO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 15.05.2008 - 7178/03

  DEDOVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.07.2012 - 31939/06

  ALEKSAKHIN v. UKRAINE

• EGMR, 08.02.2024 - 13577/16

  STOROZHUK AND KONONOV v. UKRAINE

  Reviewing the Government's objections in the light of the available documents and the principles developed in its case-law (see, in particular, Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, §§ 91-99 and 172-80, 15 May 2012, and Belousov v. Ukraine, no. 4494/07, §§ 48-49 and 56-58, 7 November 2013), the Court considers that they should be dismissed.

  (iv) Repeated remittals for reinvestigation in view of the shortcomings recognised by the domestic courts (for relevant examples, see Belousov v. Ukraine, no. 4494/07, § 56, 7 November 2013, and Adnaralov v. Ukraine, no. 10493/12, § 50, 27 November 2014).

  (v) Overall length of the proceedings (over twelve years) which are still ongoing (for relevant examples, see Belousov v. Ukraine, no. 4494/07, § 56, 7 November 2013, and Adnaralov v. Ukraine, no. 10493/12, § 50, 27 November 2014).

  (iii) Repeated remittals for reinvestigation in view of the shortcomings found by the supervising prosecutorial authorities (for relevant examples, see Belousov v. Ukraine, no. 4494/07, § 56, 7 November 2013; and Adnaralov v. Ukraine, no. 10493/12, § 50, 27 November 2014).

• EGMR, 08.02.2024 - 3016/16

  BOGDAN v. UKRAINE

  The Court has already held that confession statements made while in unrecorded detention, combined with evidence of unexplained injuries, may create an appearance that such statements were not voluntary (see, for example, Belousov v. Ukraine, no. 4494/07, § 63, 7 November 2013, and Zyakun v. Ukraine, no. 34006/06, 25 February 2016).
• EGMR, 21.03.2024 - 26815/16

  PETRAKOVSKYY AND LEONTYEV v. Ukraine v. UKRAINE

  (iii) Repeated remittals for reinvestigation in view of the shortcomings recognised by the domestic courts (for relevant examples, see Belousov v. Ukraine, no. 4494/07, § 56, 7 November 2013, and Adnaralov v. Ukraine, no. 10493/12, § 50, 27 November 2014).

 
• EGMR, 14.03.2024 - 62020/14

  MOLDOVAN v. UKRAINE

  Accordingly, the Court considers that the fees have been "actually incurred" (see Belousov v. Ukraine, no. 4494/07, § 115, 7 November 2013, with further references).
• EGMR, 19.05.2022 - 621/14

  L.F. v. HUNGARY

  The Court reiterates that any measure, if it is no different in its manner of execution and its practical effects from a search, amounts, regardless of its characterisation under domestic law, to interference with applicants' rights under Article 8 of the Convention (see Belousov v. Ukraine, no. 4494/07, § 103, 7 November 2013).
• EGMR, 20.01.2022 - 64627/13

  OKSANICH v. UKRAINE

  Regard being had to the documents in its possession, the complexity of the case and the legal aid granted to the applicant in the amount of EUR 850, the Court awards the applicant EUR 650, plus any tax that may be chargeable to him, to be paid into the bank account of Mr M. O. Tarakhkalo, as indicated by the applicant (see, for example, Belousov v. Ukraine, no. 4494/07, §§ 116-17, 7 November 2013).
• EGMR, 18.06.2020 - 19095/12

  ZAVADSKIY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  The award is to be paid into Mr O. Ignatov's bank account, as indicated by the applicants (see, for example, Belousov v. Ukraine, no. 4494/07, §§ 116-17, 7 November 2013, and Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, § 288, ECHR 2016 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 12258/09

  IVANOV AND KASHUBA v. UKRAINE

  The award is to be paid into the bank account of the applicant's former representative, as indicated by the applicant (see, for example, Belousov v. Ukraine, no. 4494/07, §§ 116-17, 7 November 2013, and Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, 288, ECHR 2016 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.10.2019 - 22964/11

  SIRENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  The award is to be paid into Mr T. Kalmykov's bank account, as indicated by the applicant (see, for example, Belousov v. Ukraine, no. 4494/07, §§ 116-17, 7 November 2013, and Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, § 288, ECHR 2016 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 42753/14

  KADURA AND SMALIY v. UKRAINE

  In that connection, the Court reiterates that, in order to comply with Article 8 § 2, an interference must, among other things, be "in accordance with the law"; that is, it should have some basis in domestic law and be compatible with the rule of law (see, among other authorities, S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 95, ECHR 2008, and Belousov v. Ukraine, no. 4494/07, § 104, 7 November 2013).
• EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 43104/04

  NEDILENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE