Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FELDMAN v. UKRAINE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 34 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 34 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 34056/02

  GONGADZE c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 38779/04

  [1] For further factual circumstances on the matter see Melnychenko v. Ukraine, no. 17707/02, §§ 7-9, ECHR 2004-X, and also Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, § 138, ECHR 2005-.
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 38779/04

  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, Reports 1996-IV, § 105; Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, § 159; 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, 22.05.2001 - 24490/94

  SARLI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 38779/04

  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, Reports 1996-IV, § 105; Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, § 159; 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, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 38779/04

  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, Reports 1996-IV, § 105; Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, § 159; 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, 09.07.2002 - 46468/99

  MANOUSSOS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 38779/04

  While the obligation imposed is of a procedural nature, distinguishable from the substantive rights set out in the Convention and Protocols, it flows from the very essence of this procedural right that it is open to individuals to complain of its alleged infringements in Convention proceedings (see Manoussos v. the Czech Republic and Germany (dec.), no. 46468/99, 9 July 2002).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 38779/04

  While it is for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law, the Court may review whether national law has been observed for the purposes of this Convention provision (see, among other authorities, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 171, ECHR 2004-II).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 38779/04

  Moreover, the Court must ascertain whether domestic law itself is in conformity with the Convention, including the general principles expressed or implied therein (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 45, Series A no. 33).
• EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 40774/02

  SOLOVEY AND ZOZULYA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 38779/04

  The Court has held on many occasions that the practice of keeping defendants in detention without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation - with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period without judicial authorisation - is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see Svershov v. Ukraine, no. 35231/02, § 54, 27 November 2008; Solovey and Zozulya v. Ukraine, nos. 40774/02 and 4048/03, § 72, 27 November 2008 and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 146-148, ECHR 2005-X).

• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE

  76556/01 and 38779/04, § 73, 8 April 2010; Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, § 74, 10 February 2011; Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, § 267, 30 April 2013; and Gal v. Ukraine, no. 6759/11, § 36, 16 April 2015).
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 40107/02

  KHARCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  It also reiterates that the practice which developed in response to the statutory lacuna whereby a person may be detained for an unlimited and unpredictable time without the detention being based on a specific legal provision or on any judicial decision, is in itself contrary to the principle of legal certainty, a principle which is implied in the Convention and which constitutes one of the basic elements of the rule of law (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 55-56, ECHR 2000-III, and Kawka v. Poland, no. 25874/94, § 51, 9 January 2001, Feldman v. Ukraine, nos. 76556/01 and 38779/04, § 73, 8 April 2010).
• EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 6759/11

  GAL v. UKRAINE

  The Court reiterates that the practice whereby a person may be detained for an unlimited and unpredictable time without the detention being based on a specific legal provision or on any judicial decision is in itself contrary to the principle of legal certainty, a principle which is implied in the Convention and which constitutes one of the basic elements of the rule of law (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 55-56, ECHR 2000-III; Kawka v. Poland, no. 25874/94, § 51, 9 January 2001; and Feldman v. Ukraine, nos. 76556/01 and 38779/04, § 73, 8 April 2010).