Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SKANT v. UKRAINE

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SKAND v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 23.07.2015 - 42164/09

  SERIKOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 25922/09

  It is true that a full-blown criminal investigation was not initiated until 8 November 2009, and before that date the applicant's case was dealt with in the context of a pre-investigation inquiry, a procedure which the Court has on many occasions held to be inadequate (see, for a recent example, Serikov v. Ukraine, no. 42164/09, §§ 82-83, 23 July 2015).
• EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 3466/09

  ZALEVSKIY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 25922/09

  However, in the specific circumstances of the present case, there is no indication that the authorities failed - in that initial period - to undertake any reasonable steps, the absence of which would have undermined the effectiveness of a subsequent investigation (see Zalevskiy v. Ukraine, no. 3466/09, § 56, 16 October 2014, with further references).
• EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 49872/11

  Julija Tymoschenko

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 25922/09

  In such circumstances, the Court is not prepared to speculate as to the course the investigation could have taken had the applicant cooperated, and cannot hold the authorities responsible for the length of the proceedings after 24 November 2010, or the way in which the proceedings unfolded (see, mutatis mutandis, Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, § 241, 30 April 2013).

 
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 31898/04

  CHIRINO v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 25922/09

  As to the Government's objection in relation to the purported loss of contact with the applicant, the Court observes that, in the instant case, there is no indication that the applicant lost contact with his representative, thereby rendering her unable to effectively represent him (contrast, for example, Feal-Martinez and Pearson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 1309/02, 1 July 2003, and Chirino v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 31898/04, 4 May 2006).
• EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 43543/09

  CONSTANTIN TUDOR v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 25922/09

  However, it does not consider it necessary to examine this objection, given that the application is, in any event, inadmissible for the following reasons (see, for example, Constantin Tudor v. Romania, no. 43543/09, § 78, 18 June 2013).
• EGMR, 01.07.2003 - 1309/02

  FEAL-MARTINEZ and PEARSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 25922/09

  As to the Government's objection in relation to the purported loss of contact with the applicant, the Court observes that, in the instant case, there is no indication that the applicant lost contact with his representative, thereby rendering her unable to effectively represent him (contrast, for example, Feal-Martinez and Pearson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 1309/02, 1 July 2003, and Chirino v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 31898/04, 4 May 2006).
• EGMR, 26.01.2016 - 22643/07

  ALPAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 25922/09

  The Court notes, however, that the latter finding is based on the information gathered in the course of the domestic investigation which is currently available to the Court, and does not mean, of itself, that the applicant's initial complaint at domestic level was not arguable for the purposes of triggering the State's procedural obligation to investigate (see Alpar v. Turkey, no. 22643/07, § 42, 26 January 2016).