Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VYERENTSOV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. ... 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 11 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly) Violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Nulla poena sine lege Nullum crimen sine lege) Violation of Article ...

Besprechungen u.ä.

• verfassungsblog.de (Entscheidungsanmerkung)

  Ukrainisches Versammlungsrecht: Rechtslücke als Menschenrechtsverstoß

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Vyerentsov v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  VYERENTSOV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 5, Art. ... 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 18 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (22)

• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 20372/11

  Such measures must also be taken in respect of other persons in the applicant's position, notably by solving the problems that have led to the Court's findings (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII; Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 120, ECHR 2002-VI; Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, § 94, ECHR 2005-X; and S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04

  S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 20372/11

  30562/04 and 30566/04, § 134, ECHR 2008-...).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 20372/11

  In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or of law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, § 45-46, Series A no. 140, and Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, 9 June 1998, § 34, Reports 1998-IV).

 
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 20372/11

  The quality of the evidence is also taken into account, including whether the circumstances in which it was obtained cast doubt on its reliability or accuracy (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-IX).
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 33771/02

  DRIZA c. ALBANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 20372/11

  However, the Court's concern is to facilitate the rapid and effective suppression of a shortcoming found in the national system of protection of human rights (see Driza v. Albania, no. 33771/02, § 125, ECHR 2007-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 28957/95

  Christine Goodwin ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 20372/11

  Such measures must also be taken in respect of other persons in the applicant's position, notably by solving the problems that have led to the Court's findings (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII; Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 120, ECHR 2002-VI; Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, § 94, ECHR 2005-X; and S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 15.12.2011 - 26766/05

  Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Zeugen (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren: …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 20372/11

  26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 118-119, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 22.11.1995 - 20166/92

  S.W. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 20372/11

  It should be construed and applied, as follows from its object and purpose, in such a way as to provide effective safeguards against arbitrary prosecution, conviction and punishment (see S.W. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, § 34, Series A no. 335-B, and C.R. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, § 33, Series A no. 335-C).
• EGMR, 30.09.1985 - 9300/81

  CAN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 20372/11

  The accused must have the opportunity to organise his defence in an appropriate way and without restriction as to the opportunity to put all relevant defence arguments before the trial court and thus to influence the outcome of the proceedings (see Can v. Austria, 30 September 1985, § 53, Series A no. 96; Connolly v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27245/95, 26 June 1996; and Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 78, 20 January 2005).
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 20372/11

  The Court reiterates that the requirements of Article 6 § 3 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 § 1. The Court will therefore examine the relevant complaints under both provisions taken together (see, among many other authorities, F.C.B. v. Italy, 28 August 1991, § 29, Series A no. 208-B, and Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 29, Series A no. 277-A).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

  KRUSLIN c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 15450/89

  CASADO COCA v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

  MAESTRI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 44774/98

  LEYLA SAHIN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 7377/03

  DAYANAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 10.11.2004 - 67335/01

  ACHOUR c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96

  COEME AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 29731/96

  Dieter Krombach
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 28341/95

  ROTARU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 12151/86

  F.C.B. c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

  KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

• EGMR, 07.01.2014 - 77/07

  Italien muss männlich dominiertes Namensrecht ändern

  Cependant, lorsqu'un dysfonctionnement a été décelé dans le système national de protection des droits de l'homme, la Cour a le souci d'en faciliter la suppression rapide et effective (Driza c. Albanie, no 33771/02, § 125, CEDH 2007-XII, et Vyerentsov c. Ukraine, no 20372/11, § 94, 11 avril 2013).
• EGMR, 02.10.2014 - 48408/12

  VENIAMIN TYMOSHENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  It is remarkable that, although the Resolution of Labour Disputes Act provides in its Final Provisions that other laws and regulations should be applicable only in the part which does not contradict that Act, and that they should be brought into compliance with it, the Transport Act nonetheless has so far continued to apply without amendment for the sixteen or so years since the Resolution of Labour Disputes Act entered into force in 1998 (see, by comparison, Vyerentsov v. Ukraine, no. 20372/11, § 55, 11 April 2013).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 26679/08

  NEVZLIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court agrees with the applicant that out of the fourteen days granted, his lawyer had even less time, only seven and a half days, because of weekends and holidays at that time, which was insufficient to enable the lawyer to adequately assess the charges and evidence against the applicant in order to develop a viable legal strategy for his defence (see, mutatis mutandis, Vyerentsov v. Ukraine, no. 20372/11, § 76, 11 April 2013).

 
• EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 67200/12

  BODALEV v. RUSSIA

  26005/08 and 26160/08, § 8, 12 June 2012; Vyerentsov v. Ukraine, no. 20372/11, § 14, 11 April 2013; Gün and Others v. Turkey, no. 8029/07, § 30, 18 June 2013; Shmushkovych v. Ukraine, no. 3276/10, § 12, 14 November 2013; and Egitim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikasi and Others, cited above, §§ 100, 103 and 106).
• EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03

  POROWSKI v. POLAND

  In sum, the "law" is the provision in force as the competent courts have interpreted it (see in particular, in the context of Article 7, Kafkaris, cited above, § 139; in the context of Article 8, Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 29, Series A no. 176-A and De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 18 June 1971, § 93, Series A no. 12; in the context of Article 9, Leyla Sahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 88, ECHR 2005-XI; in the context of Article 10, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 83, 14 September 2010; The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 47, Series A no. 30 and Casado Coca v. Spain, 24 February 1994, § 43, Series A no. 285 A; and in the context of Article 11, Vyerentsov v. Ukraine, no. 20372/11, § 63, 11 April 2013).
• EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 17526/10

  GÜLCÜ v. TURKEY

  The law should be accessible to the persons concerned and formulated with sufficient precision to enable them - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail and to regulate their conduct (see, among many others, Leyla Sahin, cited above, § 84; Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 27, Series A no. 176-A; and Vyerentsov v. Ukraine, no. 20372/11, § 52, 11 April 2013).
• EGMR, 15.12.2016 - 40583/15

  IGNATOV v. UKRAINE

  Such measures must also be taken in respect of other individuals in the applicant's position, notably by solving the problems that have led to the Court's findings (see, among many other authorities, Vyerentsov v. Ukraine, no. 20372/11, § 94, 11 April 2013).
• EGMR, 07.12.2023 - 20981/13

  CHEREMSKYY v. UKRAINE

  The Temporary Regulations approved by Decision no. 543, in their General Provisions, state that they had been drawn up "in accordance with the Convention", the Local Self-Government in Ukraine Act, the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of 28 July 1988 on the procedure for organising and holding meetings, rallies, street marches and demonstrations in the USSR ("the 1988 Decree" - the relevant extract of which can be found in Vyerentsov v. Ukraine, no. 20372/11, § 25, 11 April 2013), the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine of 19 April 2001 in a case regarding timely notification of a peaceful assembly (see paragraph 15 below) and the Code of Administrative Justice (see paragraph 12 above).
• EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 46193/13

  CHANYEV v. UKRAINE

  Such measures must also be taken in respect of other persons in the applicant's position, notably by solving the problems that have led to the Court's findings (see, among many other authorities, Vyerentsov v. Ukraine, no. 20372/11, § 94, 11 April 2013).
• EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 57642/12

  KIKABIDZE v. GEORGIA

  It was, thus, the appellate court's duty to use all the means at its disposal to dispel any doubts as to the validity and nature of the applicant's allegations, particularly in view of the fact that these allegations had not been adequately examined in the course of the jury trial (see, for example, Timofeyev v. Russia [Committee], no. 16887/07, §§ 22-24, 14 November 2017; contrast with Talmane v. Latvia, no. 47938/07, §§ 31-32, 13 October 2016, where the Court found that the relevant complaints of the applicant were duly examined by two court instances with full jurisdiction and that the lower courts provided proper reasoning; see also Vyerentsov v. Ukraine, no. 20372/11, §§ 87-88, 11 April 2013, and Mrazovic and Others v. Croatia ((dec.) [Committee], no. 25149/19, § 42, 17 December 2019)).
• EGMR - 28570/13 (anhängig)

  TURGUT GAMBAR v. AZERBAIJAN