Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SINKOVA v. UKRAINE

  No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Violation ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• verfassungsblog.de (Kurzinformation und -anmerkung)

  Wo für Straßburg der Spaß aufhört

Besprechungen u.ä.

• verfassungsblog.de (Kurzinformation und -anmerkung)

  Wo für Straßburg der Spaß aufhört

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SINKOVA v. UKRAINE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 39496/11

  Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society" (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24, and, for a more recent reference, Bédat v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 56925/08, § 48, 29 March 2016).

  However, it is a firm stance of this Court, expressed more than forty years ago in Handyside v. the United Kingdom (7 December 1976, Series A no. 24), that freedom of expression "is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population".

• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 73329/16

  HASSELBAINK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  For example, the Court found no violation of Article 5 § 3 in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of more than four years (see Lisovskij v. Lithuania, no. 36249/14, § 77, 2 May 2017), in which it considered that the Lithuanian courts thoroughly evaluated all the relevant factors and based their decisions on the particular circumstances of the case), in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of more than three years and eight months (see Stvrtecký v. Slovakia, no. 55844/12, § 65, 5 June 2018), in which the Court observed that the judicial authorities referred to specific facts of the case and did not use a pre-existing template or formalistic and abstract language and noted that, with the passing of time, the court's reasoning evolved to reflect the state of the investigations) and in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of one year, three months and twenty-three days (see Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, § 153, 13 April 2017), in which the Court observed that while the various jurisdictions referred to the previous decisions refusing bail, they gave details of the grounds for the decisions in view of the developing situation and whether the original grounds remained valid despite the passage of time), whereas the Court did find a violation of this provision in a case in which the pre-trial detention lasted three months (see Sinkova v. Ukraine, no. 39496/11, § 74, 27 February 2018, in which the Court observed that, in extending the applicant's detention and rejection her applications for release, the domestic courts mainly referred to the reasoning for her initial placement in detention, without any updated details); in a case concerning a period of pre-trial detention of forty-three days (see Krivolapov v. Ukraine, no. 5406/07, §§ 105-108, 2 October 2018, for which the Court noted the absence from the relevant decision of any justification other than the fact that criminal proceedings were pending against the applicant); and in a case in which the pre-trial detention lasted slightly less than two months (see Cîrstea v. Romania [Committee], no. 10626/11, §§ 54-59, 23 July 2019, in which the Court found that the domestic courts failed to adduce a proper substantiation for the alleged risks in case of a discontinuation of the applicant's pre-trial detention).
• EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 10271/12

  KILIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court considers that the suspended eighteen-month term of imprisonment with a similar period of probation and some other requirements (see paragraph 31 above) was proportionate in the specific circumstances of the case (compare Pastörs, cited above, § 48; Stomakhin, cited above, §§ 127-32; and Sinkova v. Ukraine, no. 39496/11, § 111, 27 February 2018).
• EGMR, 24.03.2020 - 33938/08

  ANDRUSHCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Moreover, although sentencing is in principle a matter for the national courts, the imposition of a prison sentence for an offence in the area of a debate on an issue of legitimate public interest will be compatible with freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention only in exceptional circumstances, notably where other fundamental rights have been seriously impaired, as, for example, in the case of hate speech or incitement to violence (see Otegi Mondragon v. Spain, no. 2034/07, §§ 59-60, ECHR 2011, and compare with Sinkova v. Ukraine, no. 39496/11, § 111, 27 February 2018).

 
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 4161/13

  KARUYEV v. RUSSIA

  63571/16 and 5 others, 13 February 2020, concerning the pouring of paint on statues of historical figures; Shvydka v. Ukraine, no. 17888/12, 30 October 2014, concerning the detaching of a ribbon from a wreath laid by the head of State; Sinkova v. Ukraine, no. 39496/11, 27 February 2018, concerning the frying of eggs and sausages over the "eternal flame" at a war memorial; Stern Taulats and Roura Capellera v. Spain, nos.
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 69491/16

  ZOHLANDT v. THE NETHERLANDS

  For example, the Court found no violation of Article 5 § 3 in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of more than four years (see Lisovskij v. Lithuania, no. 36249/14, § 77, 2 May 2017, in which it considered that the Lithuanian courts thoroughly evaluated all the relevant factors and based their decisions on the particular circumstances of the case), in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of more than three years and eight months (see Stvrtecký v. Slovakia, no. 55844/12, § 65, 5 June 2018 in which the Court observed that the judicial authorities referred to specific facts of the case and did not use a pre-existing template or formalistic and abstract language and noted that, with the passing of time, the court's reasoning evolved to reflect the state of the investigations) and in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of one year, three months and twenty-three days (see Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, § 153, 13 April 2017, in which the Court observed that while the various jurisdictions referred to the previous decisions refusing bail, they gave details of the grounds for the decisions in view of the developing situation and whether the original grounds remained valid despite the passage of time), whereas the Court did find a violation of this provision in a case in which the pre-trial detention lasted three months (Sinkova v. Ukraine, no. 39496/11, § 74, 27 February 2018, in which the Court observed that, in extending the applicant's detention and rejection her applications for release, the domestic courts mainly referred to the reasoning for her initial placement in detention, without any updated details); in a case concerning a period of pre-trial detention of forty-three days (Krivolapov v. Ukraine, no. 5406/07, §§ 105-108, 2 October 2018, for which the Court noted the absence from the relevant decision of any justification other than the fact that criminal proceedings were pending against the applicant); and in a case in which the pre-trial detention lasted slightly less than two months (Cîrstea v. Romania [Committee], no. 10626/11, §§ 54-59, 23 July 2019, in which the Court found that the domestic courts failed to adduce a proper substantiation for the alleged risks in case of a discontinuation of the applicant's pre-trial detention).
• EGMR, 20.01.2022 - 64627/13

  OKSANICH v. UKRAINE

  As to the applicant's complaint under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention 38. The Court observes that the applicant's complaint under Article 5 § 5 is similar to those examined by the Court in a number of other cases against Ukraine (see, for example, Sinkova v. Ukraine, no. 39496/11, §§ 79-84, 27 February 2018).
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 10982/15

  MAASSEN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  For example, the Court found no violation of Article 5 § 3 in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of more than four years (see Lisovskij v. Lithuania, no. 36249/14, § 77, 2 May 2017, in which it considered that the Lithuanian courts thoroughly evaluated all the relevant factors and based their decisions on the particular circumstances of the case), in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of more than three years and eight months (see Stvrtecký v. Slovakia, no. 55844/12, § 65, 5 June 2018, in which the Court observed that the judicial authorities referred to specific facts of the case and did not use a pre-existing template or formalistic and abstract language and noted that, with the passing of time, the court's reasoning evolved to reflect the state of the investigations) and in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of one year, three months and twenty-three days (see Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, § 153, 13 April 2017, in which the Court observed that while the various jurisdictions referred to the previous decisions refusing bail, they gave details of the grounds for the decisions in view of the developing situation and whether the original grounds remained valid despite the passage of time), whereas the Court did find a violation of this provision in a case in which the pre-trial detention lasted three months (Sinkova v. Ukraine, no. 39496/11, § 74, 27 February 2018, in which the Court observed that, in extending the applicant's detention and rejection her applications for release, the domestic courts mainly referred to the reasoning for her initial placement in detention, without any updated details); in a case concerning a period of pre-trial detention of forty-three days (Krivolapov v. Ukraine, no. 5406/07, §§ 105-108, 2 October 2018, for which the Court noted the absence from the relevant decision of any justification other than the fact that criminal proceedings were pending against the applicant); and in a case in which the pre-trial detention lasted slightly less than two months (Cîrstea v. Romania [Committee], no. 10626/11, §§ 54-59, 23 July 2019, in which the Court found that the domestic courts failed to adduce a proper substantiation for the alleged risks in case of a discontinuation of the applicant's pre-trial detention).