Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STANKEVICH v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 13, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 MRK
  Struck out of the list (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)

• EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 49756/09

  YÜKSEL c. TURQUIE

  A cet égard, la Cour rappelle sa jurisprudence (voir, entre autres, Thévenon c. France (déc.), no 2476/02, CEDH 2006-III, Stankevich c. Ukraine (déc.), no 48814/07, 26 mai 2009, Mitev c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 42758/07, 29 juin 2010, et, plus récemment, Iordanovi c. Bulgarie, no 10907/04, §§ 87-89, 27 janvier 2011) selon laquelle les droits énoncés aux articles 5 et 8 de la Convention sont éminemment personnels et non transférables.
• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 8549/06

  STRELTSOV AND OTHER

  Moreover, as a second criterion, the Court has to examine whether the rights concerned were transferable (see, mutatis mutandis, Vääri v. Estonia (dec.), no. 8702/04, 8 July 2008, and Stankevich v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 48814/07, 26 May 2009).
• EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 2982/05

  SHURYGINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously accepted that close relatives of applicants who have died can maintain applications that include complaints concerning various aspects of Article 6 of the Convention (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; Andreyeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 76737/01, 16 October 2003; Shiryayeva v. Russia, no. 21417/04, § 8, 13 July 2006 (concerning the non-enforcement of domestic judgments); and Horváthová v. Slovakia, no. 74456/01, § 26, 17 May 2005 (in the context of the length of proceedings); and contrast with Gorodnichev v. Russia (dec.), no. 52058/99, 24 May 2007; and, in so far as relevant, Stankevich v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 48814/07, 26 May 2009).

 
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 53664/08

  MATVIYENKO v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously accepted that the late applicants" close relatives could maintain applications with complaints concerning various aspects of Article 6 of the Convention (see Malhous (dec.), cited above, with further references; Andreyeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 76737/01, 16 October 2003; Shiryayeva v. Russia, no. 21417/04, § 8, 13 July 2006, concerning the non-enforcement of domestic judgments; see also Horváthová v. Slovakia, no. 74456/01, § 26, 17 May 2005, in the context of the length of proceedings; see also, by way of contrast, Gorodnichev (dec.), cited above, and, in so far as relevant, Stankevich v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 48814/07, 26 May 2009).
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 53637/08

  ZHITNIKOV AND KOLOSOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously accepted that the late applicants" close relatives could maintain applications with complaints concerning various aspects of Article 6 of the Convention (see Malhous (dec.), cited above; Andreyeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 76737/01, 16 October 2003; Shiryayeva v. Russia, no. 21417/04, § 8, 13 July 2006, concerning the non-enforcement of domestic judgments; see also Horváthová v. Slovakia, no. 74456/01, § 26, 17 May 2005, in the context of the length of proceedings; see also, by way of contrast, Gorodnichev (dec.), cited above; and, in so far as relevant, Stankevich v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 48814/07, 26 May 2009).
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 53678/08

  VERIGIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously accepted that the late applicants" close relatives could maintain applications with complaints concerning various aspects of Article 6 of the Convention (see Malhous (dec.), cited above, with further references; Andreyeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 76737/01, 16 October 2003; Shiryayeva v. Russia, no. 21417/04, § 8, 13 July 2006, concerning the non-enforcement of domestic judgments; see also Horváthová v. Slovakia, no. 74456/01, § 26, 17 May 2005, in the context of the length of proceedings; see also, by way of contrast, Gorodnichev (dec.), cited above; and, in so far as relevant, Stankevich v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 48814/07, 26 May 2009).