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)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Korneykova v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05

  The Court considers that Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention must be read in conjunction with Article 5 § 3, which forms a whole with it (see Ciulla v. Italy, 22 February 1989, § 38, Series A no. 148, and Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, §§ 56 and 71, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)), and that the complaint at issue may be considered under both provisions simultaneously.
• EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01

  REINPRECHT c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05

  Although it is not always necessary that the procedure under Article 5 § 4 be attended by the same guarantees as those required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for criminal or civil litigation, it must have a judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question (see Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, § 31, ECHR 2005-..., with further references).

 
• EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 65559/01

  NESTAK v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05

  The Court notes that 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).
• EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 1727/04

  OLEKSIY MYKHAYLOVYCH ZAKHARKIN v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05

  The Court may review whether national law has been observed for the purposes of this Convention provision; however, it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v. Ukraine, no. 1727/04, § 84, 24 June 2010).
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 38717/04

  KHAYREDINOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05

  For the Court, 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 Ladent v. Poland, no. 11036/03, § 55, ECHR 2008-... (extracts) and Khayredinov v. Ukraine, no. 38717/04, § 86, 14 October 2010).
• EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11152/84

  CIULLA v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05

  The Court considers that Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention must be read in conjunction with Article 5 § 3, which forms a whole with it (see Ciulla v. Italy, 22 February 1989, § 38, Series A no. 148, and Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, §§ 56 and 71, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)), and that the complaint at issue may be considered under both provisions simultaneously.
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05

  The Court reiterates that Article 35 of the Convention requires that complaints made before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance, and be in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law and, further, that any procedural methods that might prevent a breach of the Convention should have been used (see Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200).
• EGMR, 21.09.2017 - 40107/02

  KHARCHENKO CONTRE L'UKRAINE ET 35 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05

  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).

• EGMR, 22.10.2018 - 35553/12

  Urteil bestätigt Präventivhaft: EGMR lässt Polizei Spielraum im Umgang mit …

  (iii) Necessity 77. In the context of the first limb of subparagraph (c) of paragraph 1 (reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence) of Article 5, the Court has held that "[i]n 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, among other authorities, Ladent v. Poland, no. 11036/03, § 55, 18 March 2008; Khayredinov v. Ukraine, no. 38717/04, § 27, 14 October 2010; Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, §§ 34 and 43, 19 January 2012; and Strogan v. Ukraine, no. 30198/11, § 86, 6 October 2016).
• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 39666/16

  AGEYEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  In the leading cases of Lebedev v. Russia (no. 4493/04, §§ 109-15, 25 October 2007), Kharchenko v. Ukraine, (no. 40107/02, §§ 84-87, 10 February 2011) and Korneykova v. Ukraine (no. 39884/05, §§ 69-70, 19 January 2012) the Court found a violation in respect of issues, similar to those in the present case (see the appended table).

  Ukraine, no. 39884/05,.

• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 44475/08

  KARELSKIY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Merit v. Ukraine (no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004), Kharchenko v. Ukraine (cited above) and Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, § 80, 19 January 2012.

  It was not possible for the applicant to receive compensation for the unlawful detention (see Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, § 80, 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, 27.02.2018 - 36475/10

  AGIT DEMIR c. TURQUIE

  La Cour rappelle qu'un des éléments nécessaires à la régularité de la détention au sens de l'article 5 § 1 de la Convention est l'absence d'arbitraire (Jecius c. Lituanie, no 34578/97, § 56, CEDH 2000-IX, Konolos c. Roumanie, no 26600/02, § 45, 7 février 2008, et Korneykova c. Ukraine, no 39884/05, § 33, 19 janvier 2012, avec les références qui y sont citées).
• EGMR, 02.10.2014 - 7554/10

  VOLYANYK v. UKRAINE

  Relying on the general principles established in its case-law concerning the interpretation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 30, ECHR 2006-X, Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, § 43, 19 January 2012 with further reference), the Court observes that in the present case, the Galytskyy Court ordered and prolonged the applicant's pre-trial detention stating that: i) the applicant could obstruct investigation, in particular by influencing witnesses and other persons; ii) he could abscond or reoffend; iii) he had committed or was suspected of serious crimes; iv) there was a need to conduct certain investigative measures; v) he did not admit his guilt and refused to testify.
• EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 28969/04

  SAMOYLOVICH v. UKRAINE

  The Court may review whether national law has been observed for the purposes of this Convention provision; however, it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see as a recent authority Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, § 33, 19 January 2012).
• EGMR - 52892/08 (anhängig)

  BONDARENKO v. UKRAINE

  Was the applicant's placement in detention on 2 April 2008 compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (c) and Article 5 § 3 of the Convention to adduce relevant and sufficient reasons for a decision to deprive an individual of liberty? (see e.g. Khayredinov v. Ukraine, no. 38717/04, §§ 26-31, 14 October 2010 and Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, §§ 38 and 43, 19 January 2012).
• EGMR - 63824/10 (anhängig)

  TSYGANOK v. UKRAINE

  Was the applicant's detention between 21 June and 17 August 2006 and his subsequent detention ordered by the courts on 17 August 2006, 30 June and 24 September 2010, and 28 January 2011 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, Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, §§ 38, 43 and 47-48, 19 January 2012, Barilo v. Ukraine, no. 9607/06, § 93, 16 May 2013, and Kondratyev v. Ukraine, no. 5203/09, §§ 109-112, 15 December 2011)?.
• EGMR - 50474/20 (anhängig)

  KRYUK v. UKRAINE and 1 other application

  Did the applicants have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for the alleged violations of Article 5 § 3 and 4, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (see, for example, Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, §§ 79-82, 19 January 2012, and Taran v. Ukraine, no. 31898/06, §§ 87-90, 17 October 2013)?.