Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2012,15725
EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05 (https://dejure.org/2012,15725)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19.01.2012 - 39884/05 (https://dejure.org/2012,15725)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19. Januar 2012 - 39884/05 (https://dejure.org/2012,15725)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,15725) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KORNEYKOVA v. UKRAINE

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 41 MRK
    Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 5-1-c Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-5 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)




Kontextvorschau:





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (25)  

  • EGMR - 45050/10 (anhängig)

    SAMOYLENKO v. UKRAINE

    Was the applicant's detention free from arbitrariness and based on sufficient reasons for the purposes of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Khayredinov v. Ukraine, no. 38717/04, §§ 27-31, 14 October 2010, and Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, §§ 38, 43 and 47-48, 19 January 2012)?.

    Was the procedure by which the applicant's detention was reviewed in April and June 2010 in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in the light of his allegations that neither he, nor his lawyer, had been summoned to the court hearings (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 91-92, 1 June 2006 and Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, §§ 68-69, 19 January 2012)?.

  • EGMR, 14.01.2016 - 38800/12

    BUDAN v. UKRAINE

    The relevant international material is summarised in Korneykova v. Ukraine (no. 39884/05, §§ 25-27, 19 January 2012).

    Detention pursuant to Article 5 § 1 (c) must embody a proportionality requirement, which requires a reasoned decision balancing relevant arguments for and against release (see Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, § 43, 19 January 2012, with further reference).

  • EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 4494/07

    BELOUSOV v. UKRAINE

    The Court must, in addition, be satisfied that the detention, during the period under consideration, was compatible with the purpose of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which is to prevent persons from being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary manner (see Yeloyev v. Ukraine, no. 17283/02, §§ 41-42, 6 November 2008, and Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, § 33, 19 January 2012).
  • EGMR, 14.01.2016 - 38771/05

    RODZEVILLO v. UKRAINE

    In these circumstances the Court considers that the applicant's general submissions that his letters had been ignored by the prosecutor's office do not provide sufficient basis for dismissing the Government's allegation that he had not informed the prosecutor's office of the ill-treatment that he had allegedly suffered on 24 August 2006 (see, mutatis mutandis, Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, § 62, 19 January 2012).
  • EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 53865/11

    KUSHCH v. UKRAINE

    In order for deprivation of liberty to be considered free from arbitrariness, it does not suffice that this measure is executed in conformity with national law; it must also be necessary in the circumstances (see Nesták v. Slovakia, no. 65559/01, § 74, 27 February 2007, Khayredinov v. Ukraine, no. 38717/04, § 27, 14 October 2010 and Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, § 34, 19 January 2012).
  • EGMR, 19.09.2013 - 16880/08

    VELINOV v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

    It further 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 one of the preceding paragraphs of Article 5 of the Convention, as established either by a domestic authority or by the Court (see Wloch v. Poland (no. 2), no. 33475/08, § 25, 10 May 2011, and Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, § 79, 19 January 2012).
  • EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 5911/05

    KLEUTIN v. UKRAINE

    In the absence of a clear indication of the legal grounds for the applicant's arrest and reasons making application of the relevant legal provisions necessary, the Court considers that the applicant's arrest and detention between 22 and 24 January 2004 were not free from arbitrariness (see Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, § 34, 19 January 2012).
  • EGMR, 05.03.2015 - 28718/09

    KOTIY v. UKRAINE

    In order for deprivation of liberty to be considered free from arbitrariness, it does not suffice that this measure is executed in conformity with national law: it must also be necessary in the circumstances (see Nesták v. Slovakia, no. 65559/01, § 74, 27 February 2007; Khayredinov v. Ukraine, no. 38717/04, § 27, 14 October 2010; and Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, § 34, 19 January 2012).
  • EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 31898/06

    TARAN v. UKRAINE

    Having regard to the close affinity between the relevant principles developed under Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention, the Court shall consider the present complaint under both provisions simultaneously (for a similar approach see Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, § 38, 19 January 2012, and Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, §§ 161-164, 17 January 2013).
  • EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 9607/06

    BARILO v. UKRAINE

    The remaining relevant provisions of the Code are summarised in the judgments Korneykova v. Ukraine (no. 39884/05, § 23, 19 January 2012) and Osypenko v. Ukraine (no. 4634/04, § 33, 9 November 2010).
  • EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 30579/10

    TEMCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 36475/10

    AGIT DEMIR c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 30198/11

    STROGAN v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 6759/11

    GAL v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 37198/10

    MALYK v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 28969/04

    SAMOYLOVICH v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 12.02.2015 - 74297/11

    PODVEZKO v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 02.10.2014 - 7554/10

    VOLYANYK v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 5976/08

    ZGONNIK v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR - 6433/18 (anhängig)

    SOKOLOVSKYY v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR - 46196/11 (anhängig)

    SMILYANSKAYA v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR - 8562/13 (anhängig)

    ILLYASHENKO v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR - 63754/09 (anhängig)

    PIKHUN v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR - 63824/10 (anhängig)

    TSYGANOK v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR - 52892/08 (anhängig)

    BONDARENKO v. UKRAINE

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht