Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DUBOVIK v. UKRAINE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-5 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 42987/98

  VACHEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 33210/07

  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 of that Article (see Wassink v. the Netherlands, 27 September 1990, § 38, Series A no. 185-A, and Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 79, ECHR 2004-... (extracts)).

• EGMR - 41866/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]

  On 6 August 2007 she lodged an application (no. 33210/07) with the Court and requested the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court in her case.

  Examination of application no. 33210/07 is pending.

• EGMR, 15.09.2016 - 41651/10

  KHAMROEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  The Court has accordingly found violations of that provision in numerous cases where the applicant was detained despite the existence of established circumstances which prevented extradition or expulsion under domestic law (see, for example, Garkavyy v. Ukraine, no. 25978/07, §§ 70 and 75, 18 February 2010, and Dubovik v. Ukraine, nos. 33210/07 and 41866/08, §§ 61 and 62, 15 October 2009).
• EGMR, 10.12.2020 - 56751/16

  SHIKSAITOV v. SLOVAKIA

  The Court has accordingly found violations of that provision in cases where the applicant was detained despite the existence of established circumstances that prevented extradition or expulsion under domestic law - for example, where national law did not allow for deportation pending a decision on asylum (see R.U. v. Greece, no. 2237/08, §§ 88-96, 7 June 2011, and Ahmade v. Greece, no. 50520/09, §§ 142-144, 25 September 2012), or where extradition was excluded from the outset owing to the applicant's nationality (see Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 89, 7 June 2007, and Garkavyy v. Ukraine, no. 25978/07, §§ 70 and 75, 18 February 2010) or owing to the applicant's refugee status (Eminbeyli v. Russia, no. 42443/02, §§ 7, 17 and 48, 26 February 2009), or where detention for the purpose of extradition was rendered arbitrary from the moment that the decision to grant the applicant refugee status became final and binding (Dubovik v. Ukraine, nos. 33210/07 and 41866/08, §§ 61 and 62, 15 October 2009).