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)

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 15007/02

  The Court recalls that in assessing the reasonableness of the length of the proceedings in question, it is necessary to have regard to the particular circumstances of the case and the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, in particular the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities, and what was at stake for the applicant (see, for instance, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 124, ECHR 2000-XI).

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 22431/02

  BAGLAY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 15007/02

  However, in assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account may be taken of the state of proceedings at the time (see, among other authorities, Styranowski v. Poland, no. 28616/95, § 46, ECHR 1998-VIII and Baglay v. Ukraine, no. 22431/02, § 27, 8 November 2005).

  The Court notes that the criminal proceedings against the applicant were several times terminated and resumed, which discloses a serious deficiency in the prosecution system (see, mutatis mutandis, Baglay v. Ukraine, no. 22431/02, § 31, 8 November 2005 and Stoianova and Nedelcu v. Romania, nos. 77517/01 and 77722/01, § 20, ECHR 2005-...).

• EGMR, 17.07.2003 - 32190/96

  LUORDO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 15007/02

  The Court ruled on the compatibility with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 of an obligation not to leave one's place of residence in a series of cases against Italy, including the case of Luordo (see Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, § 96, ECHR 2003-IX).

 
• EGMR, 04.08.2005 - 77517/01

  STOIANOVA ET NEDELCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 15007/02

  The Court notes that the criminal proceedings against the applicant were several times terminated and resumed, which discloses a serious deficiency in the prosecution system (see, mutatis mutandis, Baglay v. Ukraine, no. 22431/02, § 31, 8 November 2005 and Stoianova and Nedelcu v. Romania, nos. 77517/01 and 77722/01, § 20, ECHR 2005-...).
• EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 14183/02

  ANTONENKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 15007/02

  However, in the Antonenkov and Others case (see, Antonenkov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 14183/02, §§ 59-67, 22 November 2005), where the length of the impugned restriction within the course of criminal proceedings was four years and ten months, the Court found no violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4. Also, in the Fedorov and Fedorova case (see, Fedorov and Fedorova v. Russia, cited above, §§ 32-47), where the obligation not to leave one's place of residence was imposed on the applicants during four years and three months and four years and six months, the Court found that in the circumstances of the case the restriction on the applicants' freedom of movement was not disproportionate.
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 15007/02

  The Court agrees with the applicant that the impugned measure restricted his right to liberty of movement in a manner amounting to an interference, within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (see Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, p. p. 19, § 39).
• EGMR, 23.05.2001 - 25316/94

  DENIZCI ET AUTRES c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 15007/02

  The interference mentioned in the preceding paragraphs breaches Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 unless it is "in accordance with law", pursues one of the legitimate aims set out in Article 2 §§ 3 and 4 of Protocol No. 4 and is, in addition, necessary in a democratic society to achieve the aim or aims in question (see, Denizci and Others v. Cyprus, nos. 25316-25321/94 and 27207/95, § 405, ECHR 2001-V).

• 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, 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, 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, 02.03.2023 - 38328/14

  KHRUS AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  OTHER COMPLAINTS 16. As regards the remaining complaint raised by Mr O.V. Khrus under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, having regard to the applicant's failure to rebut, with appropriate documents, the Government's explanation that the disputed undertaking not to abscond had been lifted in 2016, and also to its extensive case-law on the subject (see Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, 7 December 2006; Nikiforenko v. Ukraine, no. 14613/03, 18 February 2010; and, as a recent example, Kopytets and Shtopko v. Ukraine [Committee], nos. 9706/19 and 9709/19, 17 October 2019) and the fact that the applicant's complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings, which is linked to the present complaint, has already been examined under Article 6 § 1 above, the Court considers that there is no need to address the present complaint as raised by Mr O.V. Khrus (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 24.02.2022 - 5159/21

  ROMANOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, §§ 90-97, 7 December 2006 and Nikiforenko v. Ukraine, no. 14613/03, § 59, 18 February 2010.
• EGMR, 10.02.2022 - 33034/20

  SHVACHKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Ivanov v. Ukraine (no. 15007/02, §§ 90-97, 7 December 2006) and Nikiforenko v. Ukraine (no. 14613/03, § 59, 18 February 2010).
• 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, 08.12.2011 - 61404/08

  KOVALENKO v. UKRAINE

  It also recalls that an accused in criminal proceedings should be entitled to have his case conducted with special diligence, having a particular regard to any restrictions on liberty imposed pending the conclusion of the proceedings (see Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, § 89, 2 March 2006; and Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, § 71, 7 December 2006).
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 22674/02

  OBLOV v. RUSSIA

  Once such a reopening is allowed, the ensuing proceedings should be completed within a "reasonable time", regard being had to all pertinent factors (see, mutatis mutandis, Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, § 74, 7 December 2006, and Henworth v. the United Kingdom, no. 515/02, § 29, 2 November 2004).
• 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, 24.04.2008 - 70786/01

  ROSENGREN v. ROMANIA