Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 6492/11 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
LUTSENKO v. UKRAINE
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 18, Art. 18+5, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty Lawful arrest or detention Procedure prescribed by law Article 5-1-c - ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
LUTSENKO v. UKRAINE - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law;Article 5-1-c ...
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Kurzfassungen/Presse (4)
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
- sueddeutsche.de (Pressemeldung, 03.07.2012)
Gerichtshof rügt Justiz in der Ukraine
- spiegel.de (Pressebericht, 04.07.2012)
Gericht rügt Willkür der Justiz in der Ukraine
- migrationsrecht.net (Kurzinformation)
Justizwillkür in Ukraine verurteilt
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)
Lutsenko v. Ukraine
[17.04.2012]
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Papierfundstellen
- NJW 2013, 2409
Wird zitiert von ... (9) Neu Zitiert selbst (9)
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96
FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 6492/11
As to the applicant's manner of studying the case file, which could potentially affect the length of the proceedings, the Court first recalls its own well-established case-law, which identifies the behaviour of the parties to court proceedings as one of the key factors in assessing the reasonableness of the length of such proceedings (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). - EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99
SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 6492/11
In particular, if an applicant complains that the proceedings lasted for an unreasonably long time the Court will normally deduct any period during which the delay is attributable to the applicant (see, for example, Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 81, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); and Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia, no. 302/02, § 198, 10 June 2010). - EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 302/02
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES OF MOSCOW AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 6492/11
In particular, if an applicant complains that the proceedings lasted for an unreasonably long time the Court will normally deduct any period during which the delay is attributable to the applicant (see, for example, Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 81, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); and Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia, no. 302/02, § 198, 10 June 2010).
- EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 40774/02
SOLOVEY AND ZOZULYA v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 6492/11
40774/02 and 4048/03, § 70, 27 November 2008). - EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96
CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 6492/11
In this respect the Court reiterates that the imposition of a prison sentence for a media-related offence will be compatible with freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention only in exceptional circumstances, notably where other fundamental rights have been seriously impaired, as, for example, in cases of hate speech or incitement to violence (see, mutatis mutandis, Mahmudov and Agazade v. Azerbaijan, no. 35877/04, § 50, 18 December 2008, and Cumpana and Mazare v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 115, ECHR 2004-XI). - EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 48183/99
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 6492/11
In particular, if an applicant complains that the proceedings lasted for an unreasonably long time the Court will normally deduct any period during which the delay is attributable to the applicant (see, for example, Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 81, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); and Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia, no. 302/02, § 198, 10 June 2010). - EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 70148/01
FODALE c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 6492/11
Equality of arms is not ensured if the defending party is denied access to those documents which are essential in order to raise an effective challenge to the lawfulness of his detention (see, mutatis mutandis, Fodale v. Italy, no. 70148/01, § 41, ECHR 2006-VII). - EGMR, 29.02.1988 - 9106/80
BOUAMAR v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 6492/11
It may also be essential that the individual concerned should not only have the opportunity to be heard in person but that he should also have the effective assistance of his lawyer (see Bouamar v. Belgium, 29 February 1988, § 60, Series A no. 129). - EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94
Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 6492/11
It might even defeat the purpose of the safeguard under Article 5 § 3, which is to protect the individual from arbitrary detention by ensuring that an act of deprivation of liberty is subject to independent judicial scrutiny (see Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 49, ECHR 1999-III).
- EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06
Chodorkowski: Moskauer Prozesse sind unfair
The Court was satisfied that such standard was met only in few cases, such as Gusinskiy v. Russia (no. 70276/01, § 73-78, ECHR 2004); Cebotari v. Moldova (no. 35615/06, §§ 46 et seq., 13 November 2007); or Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 6492/11, § 108, 3 July 2012; see, as an opposite example, Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, § 129, ECHR 2007-I). - EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 15256/05
TCHANKOTADZE v. GEORGIA
As a consequence, the Court has only been satisfied in a few cases that such a standard was met, such as Gusinskiy v. Russia (cited above, §§ 73-78); Cebotari v. Moldova (no. 35615/06, §§ 46 et seq., 13 November 2007); or Lutsenko v. Ukraine, (no. 6492/11, § 108, 3 July 2012).These cases were (in chronological order): Gusinskiy (cited above); Cebotari v. Moldova (no. 35615/06, 13 November 2007); Tymoshenko v. Ukraine (no. 49872/11, 30 April 2013); Lutsenko v. Ukraine (no. 6492/11, 3 July 2012); Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 15172/13, 22 May 2014); and Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan (no. 69981/14, 17 March 2016).
[8] Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 6492/11, 3 July 2012.
- EGMR, 22.05.2014 - 15172/13
ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
In Lutsenko v. Ukraine (no. 6492/11, §§ 108-09, 3 July 2012) the prosecuting authorities seeking the applicant's arrest explicitly indicated the applicant's communication with the media as one of the grounds for his arrest, such reasoning clearly demonstrating that his arrest was an attempt to punish him for publicly disagreeing with accusations against him.
- EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13
MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE
Admittedly, in three judgments the Court has said that if a national court does not fix the duration of pre-trial detention, that gives rise to uncertainty even if its maximum is clear from domestic law (see Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 6492/11, § 73, 3 July 2012; Gal, cited above, § 37; and Kleutin v. Ukraine, no. 5911/05, § 105, 23 June 2016). - EGMR, 10.11.2020 - 23199/17
Türkische Journalisten aufgrund von Spekulationen festgenommen
The few exceptions where the States did not succeed in hiding the impropriety and unlawfulness of their agenda were Gusinskiy v. Russia (no. 70276/01, ECHR 2004-IV); Cebotari v. Moldova (no. 35615/06, 13 November 2007); Lutsenko v. Ukraine (no. 6492/11, 3 July 2012); and Tymoshenko v. Ukraine (no. 49872/11, 30 April 2013). - EGMR, 23.04.2015 - 26690/11
FRANÇOIS v. FRANCE
Ce qui n'est pas le cas lorsque la décision de placement en détention n'avait pas pour but d'accorder au requérant les garanties prévues par l'article 5 § 1 c) (Lutsenko c. Ukraine, no 6492/11, §§ 109-110, 3 juillet 2012, et Tymoshenko c. Ukraine, no 49872/11, §§ 300-301, 30 avril 2013) ou qu'elle n'était pas nécessaire au vu des circonstances (Nesták c. Slovaquie, no 65559/01, § 74, 27 février 2007, et Lutsenko, précité, § 62). - EGMR, 13.09.2022 - 44719/10
GILANOV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Thus, the proceedings must be adversarial and must always ensure "equality of arms" between the parties (see A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, §§ 203-204, ECHR 2009 with further references, and Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 6492/11, § 96, 3 July 2012). - EGMR - 35321/21 (anhängig)
ZUKAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA
Did the applicant have effective assistance of a lawyer during the hearing of 24 May 2021 concerning his detention on remand, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 6492/11, § 96, 3 July 2012, and Cernák v. Slovakia, no. 36997/08, § 78, 17 December 2013)? In particular:. - EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 79917/13
BÎRSAN c. ROUMANIE
Il n'a pas de rôle indépendant ; il ne peut être appliqué que conjointement à d'autres articles de la Convention (voir notamment Goussinski c. Russie, no 70276/01, § 73, CEDH 2004-IV, Mudayevy c. Russie, no 33105/05, § 127, 8 avril 2010, Lutsenko c. Ukraine, no 6492/11, § 105, 3 juillet 2012, et Tymoshenko c. Ukraine, no 49872/11, § 294, 30 avril 2013).