Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BIGUN v. UKRAINE

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BIGUN v. UKRAINE

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 12, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04

  KHOROSHENKO c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2019 - 30315/10

  The Council of Europe material pertaining to family visits to prisoners was quoted in Khoroshenko v. Russia ([GC], no. 41418/04, §§ 58-67, ECHR 2015).

  The Court accepts that they cannot be said to have had any family life after their divorce (see and compare with Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, § 89, ECHR 2015).

• EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 31720/02

  TITARENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2019 - 30315/10

  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, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2019 - 30315/10

  Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention (see paragraphs 50 and 53 above), the Court considers that it has examined the main legal question raised in the present application, and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the above-mentioned complaint (see, for example, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).

• EGMR, 06.06.2019 - 34345/10

  BELYAYEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  The Court also recalls that such blanket restrictions as limitations imposed on the number of family visits, supervision over those visits and, if so justified by the nature of the offence, subjection of a detainee to a special prison regime or special visit arrangements without any individual risk assessment constitute an interference with his or her rights under Article 8 of the Convention (see, for instance, Trosin v. Ukraine, no. 39758/05, § 39, 23 February 2012; Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, § 106, ECHR 2015; and Bigun v. Ukraine [CTE], no. 30315/10, §§ 33, 44 and 49, 21 March 2019).