Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 15007/02   

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/2006,48416
EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 15007/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,48416)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 07.12.2006 - 15007/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,48416)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 07. Dezember 2006 - 15007/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,48416)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,48416) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    IVANOV v. UKRAINE

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 3 MRK
    Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Violation of P4-2 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

 
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 ... (26)

  • EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 7193/02

    POKHALCHUK c. UKRAINE

    Les dispositions pertinentes du code de procédure pénale applicables en l'espèce sont résumées dans l'arrêt Koval c. Ukraine (no 65550/01, § 59, 19 octobre 2006, 30 mars 2004) quant aux principes généraux des mesures préventives, et dans l'arrêt Ivanov c. Ukraine (no 15007/02, § 57, 7 décembre 2006) quant à l'article 151 régissant l'interdiction de s'éloigner du lieu de résidence.

    La Cour rappelle ensuite que l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention vise, en matière répressive, à éviter qu'une personne inculpée ne demeure trop longtemps dans l'incertitude de son sort (Stögmüller c. Autriche, 10 novembre 1969, § 5, série A no 9. Elle rappelle qu'une affaire revêt un enjeu important pour un requérant qui demeure dans une situation d'incertitude (Nakhmanovitch c. Russie, no 55669/00, § 89, 2 mars 2006) ou qui se trouve limité dans sa liberté de circulation (Ivanov c. Ukraine, no 15007/02, § 71, 7 décembre 2006), ce qui correspond à la situation de l'intéressé dans la présente affaire.

    La Cour rappelle que la Convention permet aux Etats d'appliquer des mesures préventives qui restreignent la liberté d'un accusé pour assurer l'efficacité de la procédure pénale, y compris la privation de liberté (Ivanov c. Ukraine, no 15007/02, § 88, 7 décembre 2006).

  • EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 39188/04

    SUPTEL v. UKRAINE

    It further notes that an accused in criminal proceedings should be entitled to have his case conducted with special diligence, especially where he is kept in custody (see, among other authorities, Yurtayev v. Ukraine, no. 11336/02, § 37, 31 January 2006; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, § 89, 2 March 2006; and Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, § 71, 7 December 2006).

    Having examined all the material submitted to it in the light of its jurisprudence (see, among other authorities, Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, §§ 74, 7 December 2006, and Benyaminson v. Ukraine, no. 31585/02, §§ 104, 106, 26 July 2007) the Court considers that the Government have not provided a plausible explanation for the delay.

  • EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 32250/08

    DIAMANTE AND PELLICCIONI v. SAN MARINO

    The Court reiterates that an obligation to ask the authorities permission to leave each time does not correspond to the sense of the concept "freedom of movement" (see Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, § 85, 7 December 2006).
  • EGMR, 11.07.2013 - 28975/05

    KHLYUSTOV v. RUSSIA

    The Court has examined the proportionality of travel restrictions which were imposed in various contexts: a travel ban imposed as a measure of police supervision of a person suspected of having connections with the Mafia (see Labita, cited above, §§ 193-197); the seizure, as part of the on-the-spot investigation, and subsequent confiscation of a passport of a person who was neither prosecuted nor considered to be a witness in the criminal proceedings (see Baumann, cited above, §§ 65-67); a prohibition on a bankrupt moving away from his place of residence for the duration of the bankruptcy proceedings (see Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, §§ 96-97, ECHR 2003-IX); the seizure of the applicant's passport for refusal to pay a fine for a customs offence (see Napijalo v. Croatia, no. 66485/01, §§ 78-82, 13 November 2003); an obligation not to abscond imposed on a suspect pending criminal proceedings against him (see, among many other examples, Fedorov and Fedorova v. Russia, no. 31008/02, §§ 39-47, 13 October 2005; Antonenkov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 14183/02, §§ 59-67, 22 November 2005; Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, §§ 90-97, 7 December 2006; Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan, no. 16528/05, §§ 60-69, 10 July 2008; Makedonski v. Bulgaria, no. 36036/04, §§ 39-46, 20 January 2011; Pfeifer v. Bulgaria, no. 24733/04, §§ 55-58, 17 February 2011; Prescher v. Bulgaria, no. 6767/04, §§ 47-52, 7 June 2011; and Miazdzyk v. Poland, no. 23592/07, §§ 33-42, 24 January 2012); travel restrictions imposed for refusal to pay a tax debt (see Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, §§ 118-130, 23 May 2006); travel restrictions imposed on account of knowledge of State secrets (see Bartik v. Russia, no. 55565/00, §§ 44-52, ECHR 2006-XV, and Soltysyak v. Russia, no. 4663/05, §§ 46-54, 10 February 2011); court orders prohibiting minor children from being removed to a foreign country (see Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, §§ 214-215, 27 September 2011); and a travel ban imposed on account of a breach of the immigration rules of another country (see Stamose v. Bulgaria, no. 29713/05, §§ 33-37, 27 November 2012).
  • EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 19312/06

    VERGELSKYY v. UKRAINE

    It further notes that an accused in criminal proceedings should be entitled to have his case conducted with special diligence and Article 6 is, in criminal matters, designed to avoid that a person charged should remain too long in a state of uncertainty about his fate (see, Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, § 89, 2 March 2006 and Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, § 71, 7 December 2006).
  • EGMR, 29.09.2011 - 16698/05

    TRETYAKOV v. UKRAINE

    The Court has already found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in other cases against Ukraine featuring similar delays (see, for example, Antonenkov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 14183/02, §§ 45-46, 22 November 2005; Kobtsev v. Ukraine, no. 7324/02, § 71, 4 April 2006; and Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, §§ 69, 74-75, 7 December 2006).
  • EGMR, 16.09.2010 - 26127/03

    VITRUK v. UKRAINE

    It further notes that an accused in criminal proceedings should be entitled to have his case conducted with special diligence, especially when he is kept in custody (see, among other authorities, Yurtayev v. Ukraine, no. 11336/02, § 37, 31 January 2006; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, cited above, § 89; and Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, § 71, 7 December 2006).
  • EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 1291/03

    SERGEY VOLOSYUK v. UKRAINE

    The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see, for example, Antonenkov and Others, cited above, § 45; Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, §§ 74-75, 7 December 2006; and Benyaminson v. Ukraine, no. 31585/02, § 104, 26 July 2007).
  • EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 16528/05

    HAJIBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN

    The Court considers that this constituted a restriction on his freedom of movement (see, for example, Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, § 85, 7 December 2006).
  • EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 27672/03

    BURYAGA v. UKRAINE

    It further notes that an accused in criminal proceedings should be entitled to have his case conducted with special diligence, especially where he is kept in custody (see, among other authorities, Yurtayev v. Ukraine, no. 11336/02, § 37, 31 January 2006; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, cited above, § 89; and Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, § 71, 7 December 2006).
  • EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 26864/03

    VASHCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 14.06.2018 - 47424/13

    TRISHKOVSKAYA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 78377/13

    SERGIYENKO AND SACHENKO v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 7762/10

    KANTSARA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 06.04.2017 - 10071/11

    BODNAR AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 26124/03

    KIRYAKOV v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 26.05.2011 - 1328/04

    DOROSHENKO v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 14613/03

    NIKIFORENKO v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 22674/02

    OBLOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 70786/01

    ROSENGREN v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 03.05.2018 - 15131/17

    YALANSKYY AND GALUNKA v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 07.12.2017 - 32163/09

    CUSKO v. LATVIA

  • EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 7433/05

    KRIVOSHEY v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 10.01.2013 - 39327/06

    ZAROCHENTSEV v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 17277/03

    FEDKO v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 08.12.2011 - 61404/08

    KOVALENKO v. UKRAINE

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