Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LELYUK v. UKRAINE

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  LELYUK v. UKRAINE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 55861/00

  SVETOSLAV DIMITROV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2016 - 24037/08

  The Court notes that, where a violation of Article 5 § 1 is in issue, Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention constitutes leges speciales in relation to the more general requirements of Article 13, with Article 5 § 4 providing for a preventive remedy and Article 5 § 5 providing for a compensatory remedy (see Svetoslav Dimitrov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 55861/00, 9 May 2006, with further references).

  The right to compensation set forth in paragraph 5 therefore arises only if a breach of one of its other four paragraphs has been established, directly or in substance, by the Court or by the domestic courts (see, for example, Svetoslav Dimitrov v. Bulgaria, no. 55861/00, § 76, 7 February 2008, and Çagdas Sahin v. Turkey, no. 28137/02, § 34, 11 April 2006).

• EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 28137/02

  SAHIN ÇAGDAS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2016 - 24037/08

  The right to compensation set forth in paragraph 5 therefore arises only if a breach of one of its other four paragraphs has been established, directly or in substance, by the Court or by the domestic courts (see, for example, Svetoslav Dimitrov v. Bulgaria, no. 55861/00, § 76, 7 February 2008, and Çagdas Sahin v. Turkey, no. 28137/02, § 34, 11 April 2006).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2016 - 24037/08

  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 Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 182, ECHR 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2016 - 24037/08

  Although it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law, under Article 5 § 1 a failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention and the Court can and should review whether this law has been complied with (see, among many other references, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 171, ECHR 2004-II).
• EGMR, 04.06.2015 - 5425/11

  RUSLAN YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2016 - 24037/08

  Accordingly, in order to decide whether an applicant was required to make use of a particular domestic remedy in respect of his or her complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, the Court must evaluate the effectiveness of that remedy from the standpoint of both Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 (see Ruslan Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 5425/11, § 30, ECHR 2015).

• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 15367/14

  SHMORGUNOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Accordingly, in order to decide whether an applicant was required to make use of a particular domestic remedy in respect of his or her complaint under Article 5 § 1 and/or Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the Court must evaluate the effectiveness of that remedy from the standpoint of the above-mentioned provisions (see Voykin and Others, cited above, § 124, and Lelyuk v. Ukraine, no. 24037/08, § 35, 17 November 2016).
• EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 37454/12

  VEGIYEV v. UKRAINE

  An applicant cannot extend the strict time-limit imposed under the Convention by seeking to make inappropriate or misconceived applications to bodies or institutions which have no power or competence to offer effective redress for the complaint in issue under the Convention (see, for example, Fernie v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 14881/04, 5 January 2006, and Lelyuk v. Ukraine, no. 24037/08, § 30, 17 November 2016).