Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PANTELEYENKO v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violations of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 6-2 Violation of Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 15.03.2005 - 11901/02
• EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 11901/02

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (17)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 11901/02

  The scope of the Contracting States" obligations under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint; however, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law (cf. Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 11901/02

  The scope of Article 6 § 2 is moreover not limited to pending criminal proceedings but extends to judicial decisions taken after a prosecution has been discontinued (see Minelli v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62; the previously cited Englert judgment; Nölkenbockhoff v. Germany, judgment of 25 August 1987, Series A no. 123-C; and Capeau v. Belgium, no. 42914/98, § 25, ECHR 2005-I) or after an acquittal (see, in particular, the previously cited Sekanina judgment; Rushiti v. Austria, no. 28389/95, 21 March 2000; Lamanna v. Austria, no. 28923/95, 10 July 2001; O. v. Norway, no. 29327/98, ECHR 2003-II; and Hammern v. Norway, no. 30287/96, 11 February 2003).
• EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 11901/02

  The Court's case-law establishes that there must be a clear causal link between the damage claimed by the applicant and the violation of the Convention (amongst other authorities, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain (former Article 50), judgment of 13 June 1994, Series A no. 285-C, pp.

• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 11901/02

  The existence of such a remedy must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see, inter alia, Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 38722/02

  AFANASYEV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 11901/02

  Insofar as the Government invoked the possibility to seek reimbursement through the compensation for unlawful prosecution scheme, the Court does not consider that this procedure is pertinent to the instant case (Afanasyev v. Ukraine, no. 38722/02, § 77, 5 April 2005).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 11901/02

  It suffices for the Court to find that in any event (and this was common ground) the search of the applicant's office amounted to an interference, within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention, with his right to respect for his home (cf. Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, § 30; Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg, no. 51772/99, § 64, ECHR 2003-IV; and Ernst and Others v. Belgium, no. 33400/96, § 109, 15 July 2003).
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 28341/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 11901/02

  The Court points out that both the storing by a public authority of information relating to an individual's private life and the use of it amount to interference with the right to respect for private life secured in Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (cf. Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 46, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 11901/02

  The Court reiterates that the Convention must be interpreted in such a way as to guarantee rights that are practical and effective as opposed to theoretical and illusory (e.g., Multiplex v. Croatia, no. 58112/00, § 44, 10 July 2003); that also applies to the right enshrined in Article 6 § 2 (see Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, § 35).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 11901/02

  The Court recalls that the phrase "in accordance with the law" requires that the measure complained of must have some basis in domestic law (cf. Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 99, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)).
• EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13126/87

  SEKANINA c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 11901/02

  The Court recalls that, according to its settled case-law, neither Article 6 § 2 nor any other provision of the Convention gives a person "charged with a criminal offence" a right to reimbursement of his costs or a right to compensation for lawful detention on remand where proceedings against him have been discontinued (Narciso Dinares Peñalver v. Spain (dec.), no. 44301/98, 23 March 2000; also Englert v. Germany, judgment of 25 August 1987, Series A no. 123-B, § 36, and Sekanina v. Austria, judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-A, § 25).
• EGMR, 25.02.2003 - 51772/99

  ROEMEN AND SCHMIT v. LUXEMBOURG
• EGMR, 15.07.2003 - 33400/96

  ERNST ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 70767/01

  PAVLYULYNETS v. UKRAINE
• EKMR, 30.06.1997 - 25091/94

  SAHiN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 10.07.2003 - 58112/00

  MULTIPLEX v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 23.03.2000 - 44301/98

  DINARES PENALVER contre l'ESPAGNE
• RG, 30.11.1935 - I 34/35

  Ist ein Patent für nichtig zu erklären, wenn es zu Unrecht als Zusatzpatent …

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.06.2024 - 32483/19

  NEALON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM and 1 other application

  (d) a former accused's request for compensation for damage caused by an unlawful or wrongful investigation or prosecution (see Panteleyenko v. Ukraine, no. 11901/02, § 67, 29 June 2006, and Grabchuk v. Ukraine, no. 8599/02, § 42, 21 September 2006);.
• EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 698/19

  SÄRGAVA v. ESTONIA

  The Court has doubts as to whether in such circumstances the review by the prosecutor's office would meet the requisite standards of independence (compare Avanesyan v. Russia, no. 41152/06, § 32, 18 September 2014, and Panteleyenko v. Ukraine, no. 11901/02, § 80, 29 June 2006), and it is not clear whether a possible refusal by the prosecutor's office would be subject to a judicial review.
• EGMR, 07.07.2016 - 4322/06

  ZOSYMOV v. UKRAINE

  It considers that whatever was the domestic qualification of the disputed action, for the purposes of the Convention it amounted to "interference" with the applicant's right to respect for his home (see, in particular, Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 30, Series A no. 251-B; and Panteleyenko v. Ukraine, no. 11901/02, § 47, 29 June 2006 as regards the applicability of Article 8 to searches of non-residential premises and, mutatis mutandis, Belousov v. Ukraine, no. 4494/07, §§ 102 and 105-107, 7 November 2013 classifying an "inspection" under domestic law as interference within the meaning of Article 8).
• EGMR, 01.09.2009 - 37233/07

  [ENG]

  The Court has established in a number of cases its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to respect for home (see, for example, Panteleyenko v. Ukraine, no. 11901/02, § 62, 29 June 2006; and Gutu v. Moldova, no. 20289/02, § 69, 7 June 2007).