Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  USTYANTSEV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) No violation of Art. 34 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Ustyantsev v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 3299/05

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 3299/05

  The absence of an objection from the respondent Government does not change the situation (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 3299/05

  The Court reiterates that under Article 3 of the Convention the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, and that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI).

 
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 3299/05

  However, even if the applicant had approximately 2.5 square metres of space, as submitted by the Government (see paragraph 36 above), that was clearly insufficient in view of the relevant standards developed by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (which are quoted, for example, in Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 97, ECHR 2002-VI, and Melnik, cited above, § 47).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 3299/05

  However, by virtue of Article 35 § 4 of the Convention, the Court may declare a complaint inadmissible "at any stage of the proceedings", and the six-month rule is a mandatory one which the Court has jurisdiction to apply of its own motion (see, among other authorities, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 160, ECHR 2004-II).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 9808/02

  STOICHKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 3299/05

  The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 5 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 Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 72, 24 March 2005).
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02

  SOLMAZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 3299/05

  Furthermore, a person who has cause to complain of continuation of his detention after conviction because of delay in determining his appeal, cannot avail himself of Article 5 § 3 but could possibly allege a disregard of the "reasonable time" provided for by Article 6 § 1 (see Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, §§ 24 to 26, 16 January 2007, with further references).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 3299/05

  It noted, among other things, that guarantees of Article 5 § 3 could not depend on the specificities of the domestic legal system and that the person complaining of the continuation of his detention after conviction cannot avail himself of Article 5 § 3. In the above judgment, Court further noted that it could not be overlooked that the guilt of a person who was detained during appeal or review proceedings had been established in the course of a trial conducted in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, p. 23, § 9, Series A no. 7).
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 3299/05

  In particular, referring to B. v. Austria (28 March 1990, Series A no. 175), they submitted that, for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the applicant's detention on remand had ended on 3 March 2003, the date when the District Court convicted the applicant; from that date on, the applicant had been detained "after conviction by a competent court", within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 3299/05

  As established in Neumeister v. Austria (27 June 1968, § 4, Series A no. 8), the second limb of Article 5 § 3 does not give judicial authorities a choice between either bringing an accused to trial within a reasonable time or granting him provisional release pending trial.

• EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 28969/04

  SAMOYLOVICH v. UKRAINE

  Having regard to general principles established in its case-law (see I. A. v. France, judgment of 23 September 1998, § 102, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 153, ECHR 2000-IV; Ilowiecki v. Poland, no. 27504/95, §§ 61-63, 4 October 2001; and Ustyantsev v. Ukraine, no. 3299/05, § 81, 12 January 2012), the Court considers that, regard being had to the particularly lengthy period of the applicant's detention in the present case, the reasons for it should have been exceptionally serious.