Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KRIVOLAPOV v. UKRAINE

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5+5-3 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) (Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Article 5-3 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KRIVOLAPOV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 5406/07

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case in question and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, and the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 5406/07

  In this connection, the effective enjoyment of the right to compensation guaranteed by Article 5 § 5 must be ensured with a sufficient degree of certainty (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 182, ECHR 2012, with further references).

• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 17053/20

  BAVCAR v. SLOVENIA

  Regarding the Minister's statement, the Constitutional Court relied on Article 23 of the Constitution and on the following Court judgments: Allenet de Ribemont v. France (10 February 1995, §§ 36 and 41, Series A no. 308); Turyev v. Russia (no. 20758/04, §§ 19-23, 11 October 2016); Krivolapov v. Ukraine (no. 5406/07, §§ 127-31, 2 October 2018); Daktaras v. Lithuania (no. 42095/98, § 44, ECHR 2000-X); and Krause (cited above, p. 76).

  The majority correctly refer to ample case-law that unequivocally uses this standard (see, for example, Allenet de Ribemont, cited above, § 41; Turyev v. Russia, no. 20758/04, § 21, 11 October 2016; Krivolapov v. Ukraine, no. 5406/07, § 131, 2 October 2018; Garycki v. Poland, no. 14348/02, § 70, 6 February 2007; Pe?.a, cited above, § 138; and Konstas, cited above, §§ 37 and 43, 24 May 2011).

• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 73329/16

  HASSELBAINK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  For example, the Court found no violation of Article 5 § 3 in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of more than four years (see Lisovskij v. Lithuania, no. 36249/14, § 77, 2 May 2017), in which it considered that the Lithuanian courts thoroughly evaluated all the relevant factors and based their decisions on the particular circumstances of the case), in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of more than three years and eight months (see Stvrtecký v. Slovakia, no. 55844/12, § 65, 5 June 2018), in which the Court observed that the judicial authorities referred to specific facts of the case and did not use a pre-existing template or formalistic and abstract language and noted that, with the passing of time, the court's reasoning evolved to reflect the state of the investigations) and in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of one year, three months and twenty-three days (see Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, § 153, 13 April 2017), in which the Court observed that while the various jurisdictions referred to the previous decisions refusing bail, they gave details of the grounds for the decisions in view of the developing situation and whether the original grounds remained valid despite the passage of time), whereas the Court did find a violation of this provision in a case in which the pre-trial detention lasted three months (see Sinkova v. Ukraine, no. 39496/11, § 74, 27 February 2018, in which the Court observed that, in extending the applicant's detention and rejection her applications for release, the domestic courts mainly referred to the reasoning for her initial placement in detention, without any updated details); in a case concerning a period of pre-trial detention of forty-three days (see Krivolapov v. Ukraine, no. 5406/07, §§ 105-108, 2 October 2018, for which the Court noted the absence from the relevant decision of any justification other than the fact that criminal proceedings were pending against the applicant); and in a case in which the pre-trial detention lasted slightly less than two months (see Cîrstea v. Romania [Committee], no. 10626/11, §§ 54-59, 23 July 2019, in which the Court found that the domestic courts failed to adduce a proper substantiation for the alleged risks in case of a discontinuation of the applicant's pre-trial detention).
• EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 54547/16

  SHIRKHANYAN v. ARMENIA

  A credible complaint should normally include, among other things, sufficient reference to the medical condition in question; the medical treatment that was sought, provided, or refused; and some evidence - such as expert reports - which is capable of disclosing serious failings in the applicant's medical care (see Krivolapov v. Ukraine, no. 5406/07, § 76, 2 October 2018, with further references).
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 69491/16

  ZOHLANDT v. THE NETHERLANDS

  For example, the Court found no violation of Article 5 § 3 in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of more than four years (see Lisovskij v. Lithuania, no. 36249/14, § 77, 2 May 2017, in which it considered that the Lithuanian courts thoroughly evaluated all the relevant factors and based their decisions on the particular circumstances of the case), in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of more than three years and eight months (see Stvrtecký v. Slovakia, no. 55844/12, § 65, 5 June 2018 in which the Court observed that the judicial authorities referred to specific facts of the case and did not use a pre-existing template or formalistic and abstract language and noted that, with the passing of time, the court's reasoning evolved to reflect the state of the investigations) and in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of one year, three months and twenty-three days (see Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, § 153, 13 April 2017, in which the Court observed that while the various jurisdictions referred to the previous decisions refusing bail, they gave details of the grounds for the decisions in view of the developing situation and whether the original grounds remained valid despite the passage of time), whereas the Court did find a violation of this provision in a case in which the pre-trial detention lasted three months (Sinkova v. Ukraine, no. 39496/11, § 74, 27 February 2018, in which the Court observed that, in extending the applicant's detention and rejection her applications for release, the domestic courts mainly referred to the reasoning for her initial placement in detention, without any updated details); in a case concerning a period of pre-trial detention of forty-three days (Krivolapov v. Ukraine, no. 5406/07, §§ 105-108, 2 October 2018, for which the Court noted the absence from the relevant decision of any justification other than the fact that criminal proceedings were pending against the applicant); and in a case in which the pre-trial detention lasted slightly less than two months (Cîrstea v. Romania [Committee], no. 10626/11, §§ 54-59, 23 July 2019, in which the Court found that the domestic courts failed to adduce a proper substantiation for the alleged risks in case of a discontinuation of the applicant's pre-trial detention).
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 10982/15

  MAASSEN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  For example, the Court found no violation of Article 5 § 3 in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of more than four years (see Lisovskij v. Lithuania, no. 36249/14, § 77, 2 May 2017, in which it considered that the Lithuanian courts thoroughly evaluated all the relevant factors and based their decisions on the particular circumstances of the case), in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of more than three years and eight months (see Stvrtecký v. Slovakia, no. 55844/12, § 65, 5 June 2018, in which the Court observed that the judicial authorities referred to specific facts of the case and did not use a pre-existing template or formalistic and abstract language and noted that, with the passing of time, the court's reasoning evolved to reflect the state of the investigations) and in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of one year, three months and twenty-three days (see Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, § 153, 13 April 2017, in which the Court observed that while the various jurisdictions referred to the previous decisions refusing bail, they gave details of the grounds for the decisions in view of the developing situation and whether the original grounds remained valid despite the passage of time), whereas the Court did find a violation of this provision in a case in which the pre-trial detention lasted three months (Sinkova v. Ukraine, no. 39496/11, § 74, 27 February 2018, in which the Court observed that, in extending the applicant's detention and rejection her applications for release, the domestic courts mainly referred to the reasoning for her initial placement in detention, without any updated details); in a case concerning a period of pre-trial detention of forty-three days (Krivolapov v. Ukraine, no. 5406/07, §§ 105-108, 2 October 2018, for which the Court noted the absence from the relevant decision of any justification other than the fact that criminal proceedings were pending against the applicant); and in a case in which the pre-trial detention lasted slightly less than two months (Cîrstea v. Romania [Committee], no. 10626/11, §§ 54-59, 23 July 2019, in which the Court found that the domestic courts failed to adduce a proper substantiation for the alleged risks in case of a discontinuation of the applicant's pre-trial detention).