Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DORONIN v. UKRAINE

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 13178/03

  MUBILANZILA MAYEKA ET KANIKI MITUNGA c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16505/02

  The list of exceptions to the right to liberty secured in Article 5 § 1 is an exhaustive one and only a narrow interpretation of those exceptions is consistent with the aim of that provision (see Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium, no. 13178/03, § 96, ECHR 2006-..., with further references).
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16505/02

  The Court reiterates that it is necessary, when examining the question whether Article 5 § 3 has been observed, to consider and assess the reasonableness of the grounds which persuaded the judicial authorities to decide, in the case brought before the Court, on this serious departure from the rules of respect for individual liberty and of the presumption of innocence which is involved in every detention without a conviction (see Stogmüller v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, § 4).
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00

  NEVMERZHITSKY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16505/02

  Such a procedure was covered by the relevant reservation of Ukraine valid at that time (see Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 112-114, ECHR 2005-II (extracts); Yeloyev v. Ukraine, cited above, § 45).

• EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04

  NECHIPORUK AND YONKALO v. UKRAINE

  Looking beyond the appearances and the language used, and concentrating on the realities of the situation, the Court considers that the applicant's administrative detention was in reality part of his detention on remand under Article 5 § 1 (c) as a criminal suspect in the murder case without, however, safeguarding his procedural rights as a suspect, notably the right to defence (see Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 116, ECHR 2008-..., and Doronin v. Ukraine, no. 16505/02, § 55-56, 19 February 2009).
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 13128/06

  URAZBAYEV c. RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà eu l'occasion de critiquer des situations similaires dans lesquelles une personne avait été arrêtée sous le prétexte qu'elle avait commis une contravention administrative afin de pouvoir la tenir à la disposition de la police et de l'interroger informellement en l'absence de toutes les garanties, et en particulier en l'absence d'un avocat, au sujet d'une infraction pénale (Menecheva c. Russie, no 59261/00, §§ 85-86, CEDH 2006-III, Doronine c. Ukraine, no 16505/02, § 56, 19 février 2009, Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin c. Ukraine, no 1727/04, § 88, 24 juin 2010, Nechiporuk et Yonkalo c. Ukraine, no 42310/04, § 178, 21 avril 2011, et, dernièrement, Semenenko c. Ukraine [comité], no 52819/08, §§ 29-36, 20 octobre 2016).
• EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 52673/07

  GRIGORYEV c. RUSSIE

  Par ailleurs, la Cour rappelle avoir déjà considéré à plusieurs reprises que l'usage de la procédure administrative aux fins de l'interrogation d'une personne soupçonnée d'une infraction pénale était arbitraire au sens de l'article 5 de la Convention (Menecheva, précité, §§ 85-86, Doronine c. Ukraine, no 16505/02, § 56, 19 février 2009, Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin c. Ukraine, no 1727/04, § 88, 24 juin 2010, Nechiporuk et Yonkalo c. Ukraine, no 42310/04, § 178, 21 avril 2011, et, dernièrement, Semenenko c. Ukraine (comité), no 52819/08, §§ 29-36, 20 octobre 2016).

 
• EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 70579/12

  SHUMANSKYY v. UKRAINE

  Looking beyond the appearances and the language used, and concentrating on the realities of the situation, the Court considers that the applicant's administrative detention was in reality part of his pre-trial detention, under Article 5 § 1 (c), as a criminal suspect, but that his procedural rights as a suspect were not safeguarded (see Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 116, ECHR 2008, and Doronin v. Ukraine, no. 16505/02, §§ 55-56, 19 February 2009).
• EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 25978/07

  GARKAVYY v. UKRAINE

  The Court has already been faced with the situation where administrative detention, formally falling under Article 5 § 1 (a), had been used to ensure the availability of a person for other purpose (see, mutatis mutandis, Doronin v. Ukraine, no. 16505/02, §§ 54-56, 19 February 2009).
• EGMR, 20.10.2016 - 52819/08

  SEMENENKO v. UKRAINE

  Accordingly, looking beyond the appearances and the language used, and concentrating on the realities of the situation, the Court considers that the applicant's administrative detention was in reality part of his detention on remand under Article 5 § 1 (c) as a criminal suspect in the murder case without, however, safeguarding his procedural rights as a suspect (see Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 116, ECHR 2008, and Doronin v. Ukraine, no. 16505/02, §§ 55-56, 19 February 2009).
• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 51671/07

  GRIGORYEV v. UKRAINE

  Looking beyond the appearances and the language used and concentrating on the realities of the situation, the Court considers that the applicant's administrative detention in reality formed part of his detention as a criminal suspect, but without the requisite safeguards for his procedural rights, notably the right to defence (see Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 116, ECHR 2008, and, mutatis, mutandis, Doronin v. Ukraine, no. 16505/02, § 55-56, 19 February 2009).