Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIRONENKO AND MARTENKO v. UKRAINE

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00

  NEVMERZHITSKY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 4785/02

  The relevant domestic law and practice is summarised in the judgments Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine (no. 54825/00, §§ 53-54, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)) and Yeloyev v. Ukraine (no. 17283/02, § 35, 6 November 2008).

  The Court further observes that under Ukrainian legislation, a prosecutor cannot be regarded as an officer exercising "judicial power" within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 125, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)).

• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33958/96

  WETTSTEIN v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 4785/02

  According to the Court's constant case-law, the existence of impartiality for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 must be determined according to a subjective test where regard must be had to the personal conviction and behaviour of a particular judge, that is, whether the judge held any personal prejudice or bias in a given case; and also according to an objective test, that is to say by ascertaining whether the tribunal itself and, among other aspects, its composition, offered sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in respect of its impartiality (see, inter alia, Fey v. Austria, 24 February 1993, Series A no. 255, p. 12, §§ 27, 28 and 30; Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, § 42, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 42987/98

  VACHEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 4785/02

  The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 5 of the Convention is complied with where it is possible to apply for compensation in respect of a deprivation of liberty effected in conditions contrary to paragraphs 1, 2, 3 or 4 (see Wassink v. the Netherlands, 27 September 1990, Series A no. 185-A, p. 14, § 38, and Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 79, ECHR 2004-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 4785/02

  In this respect even appearances may be of a certain importance or, in other words, "justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done" (see De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86, p. 14, § 26).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 4785/02

  The Court reiterates that Article 34 requires that individual applicants should claim to be a victim "of a violation of the rights set forth in the Convention"; it requires them to raise the substance of the complaint but it does not oblige them to specify which Article, paragraph or sub-paragraph, or even which right, they are praying in aid Any greater strictness would lead to unjust consequences; for the vast majority of "individual" petitions are received from laymen applying to the Court without the assistance of a lawyer (see, mutatis mutandis, Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 61, Series A no. 39).

• EGMR, 07.01.2016 - 17574/07

  DAVIDSONS AND SAVINS v. LATVIA

  The language used could be perceived as going beyond the examination of the existence of a suspicion against the applicant (compare with Hauschildt, cited above; see also Mironenko and Martenko v. Ukraine, no. 4785/02, § 71, 10 December 2009) and running counter to the requirement of the judicial authorities to abstain from taking a stance on the outcome of the case and to express any suggestions in that regard (see Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 119, 28 November 2002).