Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MOROZ v. UKRAINE

  No 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);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MOROZ v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 5187/07
• EGMR, 09.01.2019 - 5187/07

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 28.11.1991 - 12629/87

  S. v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 5187/07

  3 (c) of the Convention (see, for instance, S. v. Switzerland, 28 November 1991, § 48, Series A no. 220; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, § 46, Series A no. 233).
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 5187/07

  The Court has already found in a number of similar cases lodged against Ukraine that no effective domestic remedies in respect of complaints concerning poor conditions of detention were available (see, among other authorities, Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 113-16, 28 March 2006; Ukhan v. Ukraine, no. 30628/02, §§ 91-92, 18 December 2008; and Iglin v. Ukraine, no. 39908/05, § 77, 12 January 2012).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 5187/07

  It holds, therefore, that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining uncommunicated complaints (see, among other authorities, Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 et al., §§ 210-211, ECHR 2009, and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, with further references).

 
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11105/84

  HUVIG c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 5187/07

  This requires firstly that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law; it also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned, who must moreover be able to foresee its consequences for him or her, and be compatible with the rule of law (see Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 27, Series A no. 176-A, and Huvig v. France, 24 April 1990, § 26, Series A no. 176-B).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

  KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 5187/07

  This requires firstly that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law; it also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned, who must moreover be able to foresee its consequences for him or her, and be compatible with the rule of law (see Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 27, Series A no. 176-A, and Huvig v. France, 24 April 1990, § 26, Series A no. 176-B).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 5187/07

  The Court reiterates in this connection that in accordance with Article 35 § 1 of the Convention it may only deal with a matter within a period of six months of the date of the final domestic decision, a rule which may not be set aside solely because a Government have not raised the relevant objection (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

  CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 5187/07

  3 (c) of the Convention (see, for instance, S. v. Switzerland, 28 November 1991, § 48, Series A no. 220; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, § 46, Series A no. 233).
• EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 39908/05

  IGLIN v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 5187/07

  The Court has already found in a number of similar cases lodged against Ukraine that no effective domestic remedies in respect of complaints concerning poor conditions of detention were available (see, among other authorities, Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 113-16, 28 March 2006; Ukhan v. Ukraine, no. 30628/02, §§ 91-92, 18 December 2008; and Iglin v. Ukraine, no. 39908/05, § 77, 12 January 2012).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 5187/07

  The cardinal issue that arises is whether the above interference was justifiable under paragraph 2 of Article 8. In particular, if it is not to contravene Article 8, such interference must be "in accordance with the law", pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary in a democratic society in order to achieve that aim (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 84, Series A no. 61, and Petra v. Romania, 23 September 1998, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII).
• EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 14183/02

  ANTONENKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 5187/07

  The Court further reiterates that where no domestic remedy is available, the six-month period runs from the act alleged to constitute a violation of the Convention and where it concerns a continuing situation, it runs from the end of the situation concerned (see Antonenkov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 14183/02, § 32, 22 November 2005).