Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 49872/11 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
TYMOSHENKO v. UKRAINE
Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 18, Art. 18+5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 35 MRK
Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Violation ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
TYMOSHENKO v. UKRAINE - [Deutsche Übersetzung] by the Austrian Institute for Human Rights (ÖIM)
[DEU] Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural ...
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Kurzfassungen/Presse (9)
- lto.de (Kurzinformation)
Ukraine im Fall Timoschenko verurteilt - Anordung der Untersuchungshaft war willkürlich
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
- wolterskluwer-online.de (Kurzinformation)
Untersuchungshaft gegen frühere ukrainische Premierministerin willkürlich angeordnet
- Telepolis (Pressebericht, 30.04.2013)
Kein klarer Sieg für Timoschenko
- kostenlose-urteile.de (Kurzmitteilung)
Untersuchungshaft gegen frühere ukrainische Premierministerin Timoschenko wurde willkürlich angeordnet - Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrecht rügt unter anderem Verletzung des Rechts auf Freiheit und Sicherheit
- spiegel.de (Pressemeldung zum Verfahren - vor Ergehen der Entscheidung, 21.07.2012)
Ukraine: Menschenrechtsgerichtshof verhandelt über Fall Timoschenko
- dradio.de (Pressebericht zum Verfahren - vor Ergehen der Entscheidung, 28.08.2012)
Der Fall Julia Timoschenko
- handelsblatt.com (Pressebericht zum Verfahren - vor Ergehen der Entscheidung, 27.08.2012)
Gerichtshof verhandelt über Fall Timoschenko
- Europarat (Pressemitteilung - vor Ergehen der Entscheidung)
Ankündigung Kammersitzung in Sachen Timoschenko ./. Ukraine (französisch)
Besprechungen u.ä.
- taz.de (Pressekommentar, 30.04.2013)
Die Willkür ist jetzt aktenkundig
In Nachschlagewerken
- Wikipedia(Wikipedia-Eintrag mit Bezug zur Entscheidung)+1Weitere Entscheidungen mit demselben BezugEGMR, 16.12.2014 - 65656/12
Julija Tymoschenko
EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 49872/11Julija Tymoschenko
Julija Tymoschenko
Sonstiges (5)
- zeit.de (Meldung mit Bezug zur Entscheidung, 22.01.2015)
Ukraine: Menschenrechtsgerichtshof legt Fall Timoschenko zu den Akten
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
Of Tymoshenko v. Ukraine
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)
Tymoshenko v. Ukraine
[28.08.2012]
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
- eu-info.de (Meldung mit Bezug zum Verfahren - vor Ergehen der Entscheidung, 26.04.2012)
Ukraine soll Misshandlungsvorwürfe Timoschenkos prüfen
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 14.12.2011 - 49872/11
- EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 49872/11
Papierfundstellen
- NJW 2014, 283
Wird zitiert von ... (30) Neu Zitiert selbst (23)
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93
Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 49872/11
Moreover, it is in any event beyond dispute that the bruising occurred while the applicant was in detention, thereby imposing on the Government the burden of advancing a plausible explanation as to how the bruising had occurred which did not involve the use of force on the applicant by members of the staff of the colony (see Ribitsch, cited above, § 34, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII). - EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99
PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 49872/11
An obligation to investigate "is not an obligation of result, but of means": not every investigation should necessarily be successful or come to a conclusion which coincides with the claimant's account of events; however, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II; and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III). - EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82
BOZANO v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 49872/11
In assessing the lawfulness of any deprivation of liberty, the Court is not confined to the declared, ostensible purposes of the arrest or detention in question, but also looks at the real intent and purposes behind it (see Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, § 60, Series A no. 111, and Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, § 142, 31 May 2011).
- EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93
MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 49872/11
An obligation to investigate "is not an obligation of result, but of means": not every investigation should necessarily be successful or come to a conclusion which coincides with the claimant's account of events; however, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II; and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III). - EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96
BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 49872/11
We further recall that for an investigation into torture or ill-treatment by agents of the State to be regarded as effective, the general rule is that the persons responsible for making inquiries and those conducting the investigation should be independent hierarchically and institutionally of anyone implicated in the events, in other words that the investigations should be independent in practice (see Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 135, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)). - EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00
KABLAN contre la TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 49872/11
We further recall that for an investigation into torture or ill-treatment by agents of the State to be regarded as effective, the general rule is that the persons responsible for making inquiries and those conducting the investigation should be independent hierarchically and institutionally of anyone implicated in the events, in other words that the investigations should be independent in practice (see Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 135, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)). - EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 4353/03
TARARIEVA c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 49872/11
In relation to detainees, the Court has emphasised that persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities are under a duty to protect their physical well-being (see Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, § 73, ECHR 2006-XV (extracts); Sarban, cited above, § 77, 4 October 2005; and Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX). - EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 65859/01
SHEYDAYEV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 49872/11
In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, any 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 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006, and Ribitsch, cited above, § 38). - EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 49872/11
If a person is detained the State must ensure that the conditions are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately ensured by, among other things, providing him with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI). - EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 49872/11
Even in the most difficult circumstances, such as the fight against terrorism and organised crime, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim's conduct (see, among many other authorities, Labita, cited above, § 119, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V). - EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95
PEERS v. GREECE
- EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00
KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
- EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02
KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04
POPOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01
NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01
MELNIK v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05
SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00
LABZOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05
HOLOMIOV v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 39908/05
IGLIN v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 32362/02
VISLOGUZOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 24.02.2022 - 64471/13
KOSINSKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Svershov v. Ukraine (no. 35231/02, §§ 70-72, 27 November 2008), Kharchenko (cited above, §§ 84-87); Tymoshenko v. Ukraine (no. 49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013), Kotiy v. Ukraine (no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015), Korban v. Ukraine (no. 26744/16, §§ 132-34, 4 July 2019) and Nechay v. Ukraine (no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021).5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention - Absence of an effective and enforceable right to compensation for alleged violation of Article 5 § 3, as required by Article 5 § 5 (see Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, §§ 286-287, 30 April 2013; Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015).
5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention - Absence of an effective and enforceable right to compensation for alleged violation of Article 5 § 3, as required by Article 5 § 5 (see Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, §§ 286-287, 30 April 2013; Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015).
5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention - Absence of an effective and enforceable right to compensation for alleged violation of Article 5 § 3, as required by Article 5 § 5 (see Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, §§ 286-287, 30 April 2013; Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015);.
5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention - Absence of an effective and enforceable right to compensation for alleged violation of Article 5 § 3, as required by Article 5 § 5 (see Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, §§ 286-287, 30 April 2013; Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015);.
5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention - Absence of an effective and enforceable right to compensation for alleged violation of Article 5 § 3, as required by Article 5 § 5 (see Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, §§ 286-287, 30 April 2013; Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015).
- EGMR, 24.02.2022 - 10791/20
PUKHYR AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Kharchenko v. Ukraine (no. 40107/02, §§ 77-81 and 84-87, 10 February 2011), Tymoshenko v. Ukraine (no. 49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013), Kotiy v. Ukraine (no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015), Ignatov v. Ukraine (40583/15, §§ 38-42, 15 February 2016) and Nechay v. Ukraine (no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021).5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention - no effective remedy exists in the domestic legislation as regards the complaints of violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013 and Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015),.
5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention - the right to compensation for breaches of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention is not provided for in the domestic legal system (see Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no 49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013 and Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015),.
5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention - the right to compensation for breaches of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention is not provided for in the domestic legal system (see Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013 and Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015),.
5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention - no effective right to compensation in domestic legal system for the violations of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013 and Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015).
- EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 5757/15
PIGORYEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Kharchenko v. Ukraine (no. 40107/02, § 80, 10 February 2011), Tymoshenko v. Ukraine (no. 49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013), Kotiy v. Ukraine (no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015), Ignatov v. Ukraine (no. 40583/15, §§ 38-42, 15 December 2016) and Nechay v. Ukraine (no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021).5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention - the right to compensation for breaches of the Convention is not provided for in the domestic legal system (see Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013 and Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015).
5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention - the right to compensation for breaches of the Convention is not provided for in the domestic legal system (see Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013 and Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015),.
- EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13
Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny
- VG Berlin, 15.01.2015 - 23 L 899.14
Systemische Mängel: Vorerst keine Abschiebung von Flüchtlingen nach Ungarn
Sie muss den Umständen nach notwendig sein (EGMR, Urteil vom 30. April 2013 - 49872/11, Timoschenko/Ukraine, Rn. 265). - EGMR, 24.02.2022 - 6768/11
LIFINTSEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention, (Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11,.5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention, (Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11,.
- EGMR, 19.10.2023 - 38260/21
KOZAK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention - no effective right to compensation in domestic legal system for the violations of Art. 5 § 3 (see Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013 and Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015).5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention - no effective right to compensation in domestic legal system for the violations of Art. 5 § 3 (see Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015, and Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013).
- EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 31173/17
ZAVADSKIY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention - the right to compensation for breaches of the Convention is not provided for in the domestic legal system (see Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015, and Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no 49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013).5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention - the right to compensation for breaches of the Convention is not provided for in the domestic legal system (see Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 55, 5 March 2015, and Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013).
- EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 13668/21
MELIA v. GEORGIA
He noted that the questions had referred to the cases of Tymoshenko v. Ukraine (no. 49872/11, 30 April 2013) and Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 43734/14, 9April 2019), stating that this had been "very important" and that the Court had also put a question under Article 18 of the Convention, which normally came into play in cases where a government used the law-enforcement machinery for illegitimate purposes, such as political persecutions and arrests.He had stated that the Court was reviewing the present application in the light of its judgments in Tymoshenko v. Ukraine (no. 49872/11, 30 April 2013) and Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 43734/14, 9 April 2019), which were referred to in the relevant questions.
- EGMR, 11.04.2024 - 7734/22
KOLDOBENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
49872/11, §§ 286-87, 30 April 2013 and Kotiy v. Ukraine,. - EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 72508/13
MERABISHVILI v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 22.05.2014 - 15172/13
ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 28.03.2024 - 8908/22
KOSTYUCHENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 10.02.2022 - 60241/19
ANTONOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 10.02.2022 - 39108/18
KONONOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13
MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE
- EGMR, 10.11.2020 - 23199/17
Türkische Journalisten aufgrund von Spekulationen festgenommen
- VG München, 20.02.2015 - M 24 S 15.50091
Systemische Mängel im Hinblick auf die seit 1. Juni 2013 in Ungarn bestehenden …
- EGMR, 28.03.2024 - 55250/16
BUYLUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 5312/20
RADCHENKO AND ABRAMOV v. UKRAINE
- VG München, 20.03.2015 - M 24 K 15.50072
Asylantrag, Gerichtsbescheid, Asylverfahren, Asylverfahrensgesetz, …
- EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 29978/14
SPESYVTSEV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 19.10.2023 - 47954/16
USHAKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 49701/12
MOYSEYETS AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 23.04.2015 - 26690/11
FRANÇOIS v. FRANCE
- VG Berlin, 23.01.2015 - 23 L 717.14
Aufschiebende Wirkung einer Klage gegen Abschiebungsanordnung
- VG Ansbach, 26.11.2015 - AN 14 S 15.50435
Rechtliches Gehör, Anhörungsrüge, Asylverfahren, Polen, systemische Mängel
- EGMR, 19.10.2023 - 5216/16
LEONTYEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 25922/09
SKANT v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 79917/13
BÎRSAN c. ROUMANIE