Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OLEKSIY MYKHAYLOVYCH ZAKHARKIN v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 3 (substantial aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 5-1-c Violation of Art. 5-3 Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 1727/04

  In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 119-120, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 1727/04

  Consideration has been given to the opening of investigations, delays in taking statements (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI, and Tekin v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 67, Reports 1998-IV) and to the length of time taken for the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 1727/04

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as lying with the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 34, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).

 
• EGMR, 18.10.2001 - 31143/96

  INDELICATO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 1727/04

  Consideration has been given to the opening of investigations, delays in taking statements (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI, and Tekin v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 67, Reports 1998-IV) and to the length of time taken for the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001).
• EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 65518/01

  SALOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 1727/04

  Having regard to the relevant case-law (see Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, 29 November 1988, § 62, Series A no. 145-B and Salov v. Ukraine, no. 65518/01, §§ 59 and 60, ECHR 2005-VIII (extracts)), the Court considers that the applicant's detention for such a long period without judicial intervention fell outside the strict time constraints of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 1727/04

  In these circumstances I remain unconvinced that the domestic investigation was intended to "lead to the identification and punishment of those responsible" (see § 102, Assenov and Others, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, with further reference to McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, p. 49, § 161, the Kaya v. Turkey judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 324, § 86, and the Yasa v. Turkey judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2438, § 98).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 1727/04

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as lying with the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 34, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).

• EGMR, 08.02.2024 - 13577/16

  STOROZHUK AND KONONOV v. UKRAINE

  (i) The State provided no plausible satisfactory and convincing explanation as to the origin of the applicant's documented injuries and did not disprove his account of alleged ill-treatment (for relevant examples, see Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v. Ukraine, no. 1727/04, §§ 61-62, 24 June 2010; and Dushka v. Ukraine, no. 29175/04, § 48, 3 February 2011).
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE

  69234/11 and 2 others, §§ 126-27, 11 February 2016); or the authorities manipulate procedures to prolong the detention for the same purpose (see Navalnyy and Yashin, cited above, §§ 92-95), or to delay having to obtain judicial authorisation for the detention, as required under domestic law (see Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v. Ukraine, no. 1727/04, §§ 86-88, 24 June 2010), or to proceed with a disguised extradition (see Bozano v. France, cited above, §§ 59-60; Nowak v. Ukraine, no. 60846/10, § 58, 31 March 2011; Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, §§ 163 and 165, 18 April 2013; and Eshonkulov v. Russia, no. 68900/13, § 65, 15 January 2015); or the applicant is illegally abducted and surrendered to another State (see Iskandarov v. Russia, no. 17185/05, §§ 109-15 and 148-51, 23 September 2010); or the citizens of another State are indiscriminately arrested with a view to being deported en masse as a measure of reprisal (see Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, §§ 185-86, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) - the Court finds an absence of a legitimate ground for the deprivation of liberty and accordingly a breach of Article 5 § 1.
• EGMR, 09.04.2015 - 30460/13

  A.T. c. LUXEMBOURG

  La Cour rappelle que des restrictions à l'accès au dossier aux stades de l'ouverture d'une procédure pénale, de l'enquête et de l'instruction peuvent se justifier par, notamment, la nécessité de préserver le secret des données dont disposent les autorités et de protéger les droits d'autrui (mutatis mutandis, Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin c. Ukraine, no 1727/04, § 72, 24 juin 2010).

 
• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 43098/09

  McCAUGHEY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Je renvoie à mon opinion séparée jointe à l'arrêt Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin c. Ukraine (no 1727/04, 24 juin 2010).
• EGMR, 05.03.2015 - 28718/09

  KOTIY v. UKRAINE

  The Court must also be satisfied that during the period under consideration the detention 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 Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v. Ukraine, no. 1727/04, § 84, 24 June 2010).
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 13128/06

  URAZBAYEV c. RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà eu l'occasion de critiquer des situations similaires dans lesquelles une personne avait été arrêtée sous le prétexte qu'elle avait commis une contravention administrative afin de pouvoir la tenir à la disposition de la police et de l'interroger informellement en l'absence de toutes les garanties, et en particulier en l'absence d'un avocat, au sujet d'une infraction pénale (Menecheva c. Russie, no 59261/00, §§ 85-86, CEDH 2006-III, Doronine c. Ukraine, no 16505/02, § 56, 19 février 2009, Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin c. Ukraine, no 1727/04, § 88, 24 juin 2010, Nechiporuk et Yonkalo c. Ukraine, no 42310/04, § 178, 21 avril 2011, et, dernièrement, Semenenko c. Ukraine [comité], no 52819/08, §§ 29-36, 20 octobre 2016).
• EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 52673/07

  GRIGORYEV c. RUSSIE

  Par ailleurs, la Cour rappelle avoir déjà considéré à plusieurs reprises que l'usage de la procédure administrative aux fins de l'interrogation d'une personne soupçonnée d'une infraction pénale était arbitraire au sens de l'article 5 de la Convention (Menecheva, précité, §§ 85-86, Doronine c. Ukraine, no 16505/02, § 56, 19 février 2009, Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin c. Ukraine, no 1727/04, § 88, 24 juin 2010, Nechiporuk et Yonkalo c. Ukraine, no 42310/04, § 178, 21 avril 2011, et, dernièrement, Semenenko c. Ukraine (comité), no 52819/08, §§ 29-36, 20 octobre 2016).
• EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05

  KORNEYKOVA 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 Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v. Ukraine, no. 1727/04, § 84, 24 June 2010).
• EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 19421/15

  V.D. v. CROATIA (No. 2)

  In these circumstances, given that adequate information about the applicant's rights as a victim in the proceedings was duly provided to him, including information on the investigative measures to be taken, and taking into account that he had access to the file and a possibility to indicate facts and propose evidence to be obtained in the investigation, the Court does not find that the investigation was not accessible to the applicant to the extent necessary to safeguard his legitimate interests (see, by contrast, Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, § 44, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts); Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v. Ukraine, no. 1727/04, §§ 71-74, 24 June 2010, and Enukidze and Girgvliani, cited above, § 250).
• EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 5911/05

  KLEUTIN v. UKRAINE

  The Court may review whether national law has been observed for the purposes of this Convention provision; however, it is first and foremost up to 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, 26.11.2015 - 24213/08

  BASENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 75345/01

  YATSENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 29.09.2011 - 16698/05

  TRETYAKOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 41107/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.12.2015 - 17969/09

  TIKHONOV v. UKRAINE