Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 05.07.2012 - 41716/06   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2012,27127
EGMR, 05.07.2012 - 41716/06 (https://dejure.org/2012,27127)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 05.07.2012 - 41716/06 (https://dejure.org/2012,27127)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 05. Juli 2012 - 41716/06 (https://dejure.org/2012,27127)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,27127) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    GOLOVAN v. UKRAINE

    Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home Respect for private life) Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (13)

  • EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06

    Chodorkowski: Moskauer Prozesse sind unfair

    Most significantly, the search in Mr Drel's office was not accompanied by appropriate procedural safeguards, for example a court warrant, as required by the Advocacy Act and confirmed by the Constitutional Court (see paragraphs 398 and 399 above; see also, mutatis mutandis, Aleksanyan, cited above, § 214; Golovan v. Ukraine, no. 41716/06, § 64, 5 July 2012; and Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria, no. 74336/01, ECHR 2007-IV).
  • EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 63638/14

    POSEVINI v. BULGARIA

    It should only be noted that such proceedings - which the applicants did not attempt to trigger at any point -could have enabled the establishment of the facts and thus facilitated the use of the above-mentioned civil-law remedy, even if they had not resulted in individual criminal or disciplinary liability (see, mutatis mutandis, Golovan v. Ukraine, no. 41716/06, §§ 74 and 79, 5 July 2012).
  • EGMR, 27.03.2018 - 47889/08

    VOYKIN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    As regards the third and fourth applicants" attempts to have the officers prosecuted, the Court does not consider that in the circumstances of the instant case the application of criminal-law sanctions was indispensable for the appropriate protection of the applicants" rights against unlawful searches (see Golovan v. Ukraine, no. 41716/06, § 72, 5 July 2012).
  • EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 3082/06

    TARANEKS v. LATVIA

    The Court sees no reason to hold otherwise (see, mutatis mutandis, Golovan v. Ukraine, no. 41716/06, § 51, 5 July 2012, and the case-law cited there).
  • EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 55749/08

    YEVGENIY PETRENKO v. UKRAINE

    However, the Court has previously held in various contexts that this investigative procedure does not comply with the principles of an effective remedy for the following reasons: the enquiring officer can take only a limited number of procedural steps within that procedure; the victims have no formal status, with the result that their effective participation in the procedure is excluded; and any other remedy available to the victims, including a claim for damages, has limited chances of success and could be considered as theoretical and illusory (see Davydov and Others, cited above, §§ 310-12; Golovan v. Ukraine, no. 41716/06, § 75, 5 July 2012; and Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, § 105, 26 July 2012).
  • EGMR, 28.04.2016 - 41085/05

    BAGIYEVA v. UKRAINE

    As regards the pre-investigation inquiry in relation to the abuse or ultra vires actions, the Court notes that the investigative procedure did not comply with the principles of an effective remedy, because the inquiring officer could only take a limited number of procedural steps within that procedure at a point where the victim had no formal status, thus excluding her effective participation in the procedure (see Golovan v. Ukraine, no. 41716/06, § 75, 5 July 2012).
  • EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 13837/09

    A.N. v. UKRAINE

    In this regard the Court has previously found that such pre-investigation enquiries do not comply with the principles of an effective remedy for the following reasons: the enquiring officer can take only a limited number of procedural steps within that procedure; the victims have no formal status, with the result that their effective participation in the procedure is precluded; any other remedy available to the victims, including a claim for damages, has limited chances of success and could be considered as theoretical and illusory (see Davydov and Others, cited above, §§ 310-312; Golovan v. Ukraine, no. 41716/06, § 75, 5 July 2012; and Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, § 105, 26 July 2012).
  • EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 41152/06

    AVANESYAN v. RUSSIA

    Moreover, the prosecution of police officers, even if successful, was possible only in respect of their own actions and could not have led to a substantive review of the lawfulness of the judicial authorisation for the search (see Golovan v. Ukraine, no. 41716/06, § 72, 5 July 2012, and Peev v. Bulgaria, no. 64209/01, § 70, 26 July 2007).
  • EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 56697/09

    SKOROKHODOV v. UKRAINE

    However, the Court has held in various contexts that this investigative procedure does not comply with the principles of an effective remedy because the enquiring officer can take only a limited number of procedural steps within that procedure at a point where victims have no formal status, thus excluding their effective participation in the procedure (see Davydov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02, §§ 310-312, 1 July 2010; Golovan v. Ukraine, no. 41716/06, § 75, 5 July 2012; and Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, § 105, 26 July 2012).
  • EGMR, 05.10.2017 - 33015/06

    VOSKOBOYNIKOV v. UKRAINE

    Neither did they refer to any other plausible reason to justify the deviation from those requirements of domestic law (see, for a comparable situation, Golovan v. Ukraine, no. 41716/06, §§ 10, 58 and 59, 5 July 2012).
  • EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 59731/09

    SERGEY SAVENKO v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 16908/09

    LISOVAIA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  • EGMR - 42371/08 (anhängig)

    TORTLADZE v. GEORGIA

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht