Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 70579/12 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2020,29650) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SHUMANSKYY v. UKRAINE
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to ...
Sonstiges
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 9139/08
V.K. v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 70579/12
Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its finding under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see paragraph 62 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, the applicant's complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention is admissible and whether there has also been a violation of that provision (see, for the approach, V.K. v. Russia, no. 9139/08, § 43, 4 April 2017, and the reference therein to Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). - EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16505/02
DORONIN v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 70579/12
Looking beyond the appearances and the language used, and concentrating on the realities of the situation, the Court considers that the applicant's administrative detention was in reality part of his pre-trial detention, under Article 5 § 1 (c), as a criminal suspect, but that his procedural rights as a suspect were not safeguarded (see Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 116, ECHR 2008, and Doronin v. Ukraine, no. 16505/02, §§ 55-56, 19 February 2009). - EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08
CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 70579/12
Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its finding under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see paragraph 62 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, the applicant's complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention is admissible and whether there has also been a violation of that provision (see, for the approach, V.K. v. Russia, no. 9139/08, § 43, 4 April 2017, and the reference therein to Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).