Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAMOYLOVICH v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 28969/04

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 28969/04

  The Court observes that it has already dismissed similar objections of non-exhaustion in a number of other cases, where it found that the complaints concerned problems of a structural nature in the domestic prison system in question (see, for example, Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 69-71, 28 March 2006; Koktysh v. Ukraine, no. 43707/07, § 86, 10 December 2009; and Logvinenko v. Ukraine, no. 13448/07, §§ 57-58, 14 October 2010).
• EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 43707/07

  KOKTYSH v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 28969/04

  The Court observes that it has already dismissed similar objections of non-exhaustion in a number of other cases, where it found that the complaints concerned problems of a structural nature in the domestic prison system in question (see, for example, Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 69-71, 28 March 2006; Koktysh v. Ukraine, no. 43707/07, § 86, 10 December 2009; and Logvinenko v. Ukraine, no. 13448/07, §§ 57-58, 14 October 2010).

 
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 13448/07

  LOGVINENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 28969/04

  The Court observes that it has already dismissed similar objections of non-exhaustion in a number of other cases, where it found that the complaints concerned problems of a structural nature in the domestic prison system in question (see, for example, Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 69-71, 28 March 2006; Koktysh v. Ukraine, no. 43707/07, § 86, 10 December 2009; and Logvinenko v. Ukraine, no. 13448/07, §§ 57-58, 14 October 2010).
• EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05

  KORNEYKOVA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 28969/04

  The Court may review whether national law has been observed for the purposes of this Convention provision; however, it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see as a recent authority Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, § 33, 19 January 2012).
• EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 3299/05

  USTYANTSEV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 28969/04

  Having regard to general principles established in its case-law (see I. A. v. France, judgment of 23 September 1998, § 102, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 153, ECHR 2000-IV; Ilowiecki v. Poland, no. 27504/95, §§ 61-63, 4 October 2001; and Ustyantsev v. Ukraine, no. 3299/05, § 81, 12 January 2012), the Court considers that, regard being had to the particularly lengthy period of the applicant's detention in the present case, the reasons for it should have been exceptionally serious.