Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TITARENKO v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6+6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 13+3, Art. 13+8, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) No violation of Article 5 - Right ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Titarenko v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 8721/05

  ISTRATII v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 31720/02

  Handcuffing of the applicant gave rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in a situation where no serious risks to security could be proved to exist (see Henaf v. France, no. 65436/01, §§ 51 and 56, ECHR 2003-XI; Istratii and Others v. Moldova, nos. 8721/05, 8705/05 and 8742/05, §§ 57 and 58, 27 March 2007).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

  KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 31720/02

  This expression requires firstly that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law; it also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned, who must moreover be able to foresee its consequences for him, and be compatible with the rule of law (see Kruslin v. France and Huvig v. France, 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, § 27, and Series A no. 176-B, § 26, respectively).
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 29731/96

  Dieter Krombach

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 31720/02

  The Court further reiterates that, although not absolute, the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer, assigned officially if need be, is one of the fundamental features of a fair trial (see Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 89, ECHR 2001-II).

 
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 31720/02

  The applicant's allegations suggest that the detainees had less than 2 sq.m. of living space which is far below the standards developed in the Court's case-law (see, among other authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 97, ECHR 2002-VI; and Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, § 103, 28 March 2006).
• EKMR, 12.01.1998 - 37998/97

  MEERBREY v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 31720/02

  Such a practice has occasionally been examined in the context of the guarantee of the presumption of innocence under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (see Auguste v. France, no. 11837/85, Commission Report of 7 June 1990, D.R. 69, p. 104; see also Meerbrey v. Germany, no. 37998/97, Commission decision of 12 January 1998).
• EKMR, 09.11.1989 - 11837/85

  AUGUSTE contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 31720/02

  Such a practice has occasionally been examined in the context of the guarantee of the presumption of innocence under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (see Auguste v. France, no. 11837/85, Commission Report of 7 June 1990, D.R. 69, p. 104; see also Meerbrey v. Germany, no. 37998/97, Commission decision of 12 January 1998).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11105/84

  HUVIG c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 31720/02

  This expression requires firstly that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law; it also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned, who must moreover be able to foresee its consequences for him, and be compatible with the rule of law (see Kruslin v. France and Huvig v. France, 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, § 27, and Series A no. 176-B, § 26, respectively).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 31720/02

  The Court must therefore examine whether the above interference is justifiable under paragraph 2 of Article 8. In particular, if it is not to contravene Article 8, the interference must be "in accordance with the law", pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary in a democratic society in order to achieve that aim (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, Series A no. 61, § 84, and Petra v. Romania, 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII, § 36).
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 31720/02

  Thus, in the case of Sarban v. Moldova (no. 3456/05, § 90, 4 October 2005) the applicant was brought to court in handcuffs and held in a cage during the hearings, even though he was under guard and was wearing a surgical collar (see, a contrario, the case of Potapov v. Russia ((dec.), no. 14934/03, 1 August 2006).
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00

  NEVMERZHITSKY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 31720/02

  Other relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgments of Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine (no. 54825/00, §§ 53-61, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)), and Shalimov v. Ukraine (no. 20808/02, §§ 39-42, 4 March 2010).
• EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 8217/04

  GUBIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 32541/08

  Keine Käfige für Angeklagte

  Il estime en revanche qu'elle présente des similitudes avec une affaire où le recours à une cage a conduit à un constat de non-violation, à savoir Titarenko c. Ukraine, no 31720/02, §§ 58-64, 20 septembre 2012.
• EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 13810/04

  SHAMARDAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Dans ces conditions, la Cour ne voit aucune raison qui justifiât d'exclure le requérant du bénéfice des garanties pertinentes dans le cadre de ses contacts avec la police (sur les contacts informels entre la personne interpellée et la police, voir Titarenko c. Ukraine, no 31720/02, § 87, 20 septembre 2012).
• EGMR, 12.10.2023 - 47320/15

  BEZOBRAZOV v. UKRAINE

  The Court is prepared to accept that the above circumstances could reasonably constitute sufficient grounds justifying the applicant's pre-trial detention for less than four months (see Titarenko v. Ukraine, no. 31720/02, §§ 72-73, 20 September 2012; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, §§ 38, 43-45, 18 December 2012; and Nenad Kovacevic v. Croatia, no. 38415/13, §§ 59, 65-69, 24 November 2015).

 
• EGMR - 50933/18 (anhängig)

  MELNYK v. UKRAINE

  Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant" confinement in a metal cage during court hearings (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 113-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts) and Titarenko v. Ukraine, no. 31720/02, § 63, 20 September 2012)?.
• EGMR, 26.01.2016 - 60201/09

  GATTO c. ITALIE

  La Cour a établi dans un certain nombre d'affaires sa pratique en ce qui concerne les griefs tirés de la violation de l'article 8 de la Convention en raison de l'impossibilité prolongée, pour un prisonnier, d'obtenir des colloques avec les membres de sa famille (voir, par exemple, Messina c. Italie (no 2), no 25498/94, §§ 61-74, CEDH 2000-X ; Ostrovar c. Moldova, no 35207/03, §§ 105-108, 13 septembre 2005; Shalimov c. Ukraine, no 20808/02, §§ 81-91,4 mars 2010 ; Titarenko c. Ukraine, no 31720/02, §§ 99-104, 20 septembre 2012 ; et Khodorkovskiy et Lebedev c. Russie, nos 11082/06 et 13772/05, § 835-851, 25 juillet 2013).
• EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 11551/13

  POLTORATSKYY v. UKRAINE

  His complaints were therefore targeted against the applicable legal provisions (compare Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, §§ 127 and 137, ECHR 2005-X, Titarenko v. Ukraine, no. 31720/02, § 110, 20 September 2012, and Bigun, cited above, § 53).
• EGMR, 21.03.2019 - 30315/10

  BIGUN v. UKRAINE

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 cannot be interpreted as requiring a remedy against the state of domestic law, as otherwise the Court would be imposing on Contracting States a requirement to incorporate the Convention (see Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 113, ECHR 2002-VI, and Titarenko v. Ukraine, no. 31720/02, § 110, 20 September 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 12.04.2018 - 33641/17

  SUKHYNIN v. UKRAINE

  Consequently, the Court finds that the period of the applicant's detention of one year and almost nine months does not appear, in the circumstances, to be excessive (see Titarenko v. Ukraine, no. 31720/02, §§ 72-73, 20 September 2012; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, §§ 38, 43-45, 18 December 2012; and Nenad Kovacevic v. Croatia, no. 38415/13, §§ 59, 65-69, 24 November 2015).