Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GAVULA v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 34 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 52652/07
• EGMR, 01.10.2020 - 52652/07

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 48183/99

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 52652/07

  It also reiterates that where a person is held in custody pending the conclusion of the proceedings against him, this is a fact that requires particular diligence on the part of the authorities dealing with the case to administer justice expeditiously (see, for example, Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 83, ECHR 2003-IX; Yurtayev v. Ukraine, no. 11336/02, § 37, 31 January 2006; Vergelskyy v. Ukraine, no. 19312/06, § 117, 12 March 2009).
• EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 19312/06

  VERGELSKYY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 52652/07

  It also reiterates that where a person is held in custody pending the conclusion of the proceedings against him, this is a fact that requires particular diligence on the part of the authorities dealing with the case to administer justice expeditiously (see, for example, Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 83, ECHR 2003-IX; Yurtayev v. Ukraine, no. 11336/02, § 37, 31 January 2006; Vergelskyy v. Ukraine, no. 19312/06, § 117, 12 March 2009).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 52652/07

  It also reiterates that where a person is held in custody pending the conclusion of the proceedings against him, this is a fact that requires particular diligence on the part of the authorities dealing with the case to administer justice expeditiously (see, for example, Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 83, ECHR 2003-IX; Yurtayev v. Ukraine, no. 11336/02, § 37, 31 January 2006; Vergelskyy v. Ukraine, no. 19312/06, § 117, 12 March 2009).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 52652/07

  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 following criteria: the complexity of the case, 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, 11.10.2016 - 53659/07

  KASPAROV v. RUSSIA

  It reiterates that unrecorded deprivation of liberty, in the absence of any plausible explanation by the Government for this, is in itself sufficient to find a violation of Article 5 § 1 (for instance Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, §§ 87-98, ECHR 2006-III; El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, § 237, ECHR 2012; Gavula v. Ukraine, no. 52652/07, §§ 82-85, 16 May 2013; and Oleynik v. Russia, no. 23559/07, §§ 38-39, 21 June 2016).
• EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 71660/11

  BARYSHEVSKYY v. UKRAINE

  It also reiterates that where a person is held in custody pending the conclusion of the proceedings against him, this is a fact that requires particular diligence on the part of the authorities dealing with the case to administer justice expeditiously (see, e.g., Gavula v. Ukraine, no. 52652/07, § 96, 16 May 2013).
• EGMR, 22.09.2016 - 1574/06

  SAVCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  The Court has considered as evidence in such situations, for example, written statements by fellow inmates or photographs provided by applicants in support of their allegations (see Visloguzov v. Ukraine, no. 32362/02, § 45, 20 May 2010, with further references, and Gavula v. Ukraine, no. 52652/07, § 73, 16 May 2013).