Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LYSYUK v. UKRAINE

  Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 8 - Right to ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  LYSYUK v. UKRAINE

  Art. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. 1, Art. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 1Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 72531/13

  The relevant principles of the Court's case-law can be found in Pélissier and Sassi v. France ([GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).

• EGMR, 07.03.2024 - 74785/14

  VOLKOV v. UKRAINE

  In any event, given that he admitted to having accepted money from the person who was the target of a criminal investigation which the applicant had conducted and having used it to repay a personal debt, the evidence collected as a result of the surveillance measures had a limited impact on the applicant's conviction (compare Lysyuk v. Ukraine, no. 72531/13, 14 October 2021).

  [2] At the relevant time, section 8 of the Act provided that the use of technical means of obtaining information during operational-search activities had to be authorised by a court decision (see Berlizev v. Ukraine, no. 43571/12, § 27, 8 July 2021, and Lysyuk v. Ukraine, no. 72531/13, § 32, 14 October 2021).