Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 49872/11   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2013,8200
EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 49872/11 (https://dejure.org/2013,8200)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30.04.2013 - 49872/11 (https://dejure.org/2013,8200)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30. April 2013 - 49872/11 (https://dejure.org/2013,8200)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,8200) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

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
    +1
    Weitere Entscheidungen mit demselben Bezug
    EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 65656/12

    Julija Tymoschenko

    EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 49872/11

    Julija Tymoschenko

    (Wikipedia-Eintrag mit Bezug zur Entscheidung)

    Julija Tymoschenko

Sonstiges (5)

Verfahrensgang

Papierfundstellen

  • NJW 2014, 283
 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (30)Neu Zitiert selbst (23)

  • 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

    NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 49872/11
    The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, § 103, 28 March 2006; Visloguzov v. Ukraine, no. 32362/02, § 46, 20 May 2010; and Iglin v. Ukraine, no. 39908/05, § 52, 12 January 2012).
  • EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

    SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 49872/11
    The Court refers to the further principles established in its case-law in respect of conditions of detention (see Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, §§ 75-77, 4 October 2005).
  • EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

    RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

    Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  • EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

    KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

    POPOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

    MELNIK v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

    PEERS v. GREECE

  • EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 39908/05

    IGLIN v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 32362/02

    VISLOGUZOV v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05

    HOLOMIOV v. MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

    LABZOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

    Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  • EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

    KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  • 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),.

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht