Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GERASHCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 34 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Gerashchenko v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (19)

• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 24490/94

  SARLI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 20602/05

  The Court also underlines that the undertaking not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual application precludes any interference with the individual's right to present and pursue his complaint before the Court effectively (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 105, Reports 1996-IV; Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 159, Reports 1998-III; Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV; Sarlı v. Turkey, no. 24490/94, §§ 85-86, 22 May 2001; and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 20602/05

  The Court also underlines that the undertaking not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual application precludes any interference with the individual's right to present and pursue his complaint before the Court effectively (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 105, Reports 1996-IV; Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 159, Reports 1998-III; Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV; Sarlı v. Turkey, no. 24490/94, §§ 85-86, 22 May 2001; and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002).
• EGMR, 28.04.2005 - 41604/98

  Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens und der Wohnung (Einsatz von Durchsuchungen …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 20602/05

  Elements to be taken into consideration in this regard include, but are not limited to, the manner and circumstances in which the order was issued, in particular whether there was further evidence available at that time, and the content and scope of the order, having particular regard to the safeguards taken in order to confine the impact of the measure to reasonable bounds (see Buck v. Germany, no. 41604/98, §§ 44-45, ECHR 2005-IV).

 
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 20602/05

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, in particular the complexity of the case, the applicant's conduct and the conduct of the competent authorities (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 09.07.2002 - 46468/99

  MANOUSSOS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 20602/05

  While the obligation imposed is of a procedural nature, distinguishable from the substantive rights set out in the Convention and its Protocols, it flows from the very essence of this procedural right that it is open to individuals to complain of its alleged infringement in Convention proceedings (see Manoussos v. the Czech Republic and Germany (dec.), no. 46468/99, 9 July 2002).
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 20602/05

  The Court also underlines that the undertaking not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual application precludes any interference with the individual's right to present and pursue his complaint before the Court effectively (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 105, Reports 1996-IV; Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 159, Reports 1998-III; Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV; Sarlı v. Turkey, no. 24490/94, §§ 85-86, 22 May 2001; and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002).
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00

  NEVMERZHITSKY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 20602/05

  The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) are to be found in the judgments in the following cases: Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, §§ 53-54, ECHR 2005-II (extracts); Kucheruk v. Ukraine, no. 2570/04, §§ 67-69, 6 September 2007; and Sergey Volosyuk v. Ukraine, no. 1291/03, §§ 24-25, 12 March 2009.
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 20602/05

  Where the court maintains the detention using each time similar, not to say stereotyped, wording, without showing that it actually pays attention to the passage of time, the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention are not met (see Mansur v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 55, Series A no. 319 B; Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, § 109, 9 March 2006; and Tiron v. Romania, no. 17689/03, § 39, 7 July 2009).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 20602/05

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as lying with the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 20602/05

  Continued detention can be justified in a given case only if there are actual indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty laid down in Article 5 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 110 et seq., ECHR 2000-XI; and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 140, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96

  JABLONSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 2570/04

  KUCHERUK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 18.10.2005 - 6778/05

  MPP GOLUB c. UKRAINE