Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SYTNYK v. UKRAINE

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Criminal charge;Fair hearing;Impartial tribunal);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SYTNYK v. UKRAINE

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (16)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04

  Britische DNA-Datenbanken verstoßen gegen die Europäische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2025 - 16497/20

  Rn. 103 The Court reiterates that the concept of "private life" is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition (see S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 66, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11

  Denisov v. Ukraine

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2025 - 16497/20

  No such particular reason exists in the present case and the Court therefore has to examine whether Article 8 of the Convention is applicable, and accordingly whether it has jurisdiction ratione materiae to examine the relevant complaint on the merits (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 93-94, 25 September 2018).
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 41723/06

  EGMR zur "negativen Meinungsfreiheit"

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2025 - 16497/20

  The Court has also consistently held that the protection of an individual's moral and psychological integrity is an important aspect of Article 8 of the Convention (ibid., and Gillberg v. Sweden [GC], no. 41723/06, § 68, 3 April 2012).

• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 35485/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2025 - 16497/20

  Furthermore, the Court has held that inconsistencies between a witness's own statements given at various times, as well as serious inconsistencies between different types of evidence produced by the prosecution, give rise to serious grounds for challenging the credibility of the witness and the probative value of his or her testimony; as such, this type of challenge constitutes an objection capable of influencing the assessment of the factual circumstances of the case based on that evidence and, ultimately, the outcome of the trial (see Huseyn and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 35485/05 and 3 others, § 206, 26 July 2011).
• EGMR, 06.07.2023 - 21181/19

  TULEYA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2025 - 16497/20

  There are therefore no grounds for applying the Gillberg exclusionary principle as suggested by the Government (see paragraphs 97 and 104 above, and compare Tuleya v. Poland, nos. 21181/19 and 51751/20, § 376, 6 July 2023).
• EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17

  RUSTAVI 2 BROADCASTING COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2025 - 16497/20

  According to the Court's case-law, the appearance of partiality under the objective test is to be measured by the standard of an objective observer (see, for example, Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd and Others v. Georgia, no. 16812/17, § 332, 18 July 2019, with further references).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2025 - 16497/20

  Rn. 103 The Court reiterates that the concept of "private life" is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition (see S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 66, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 919/15

  ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2025 - 16497/20

  Rn. 80 Having regard to the above, the Court considers that the domestic courts' approach in accepting N.'s statements as decisive evidence to convict the applicant, without addressing any of the latter's serious arguments putting in doubt its reliability, was manifestly unreasonable (compare Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 919/15, § 221, 16 November 2017).
• EGMR, 26.03.2020 - 10090/16

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2025 - 16497/20

  Rn. 162 The Court sees no reason to disagree and holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant (compare Centre for Democracy and the Rule of Law v. Ukraine, no. 10090/16, §§ 123-24, 26 March 2020).
• EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 88/05

  DANILOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2025 - 16497/20

  In performing the check, they have a duty to use all the means in their power to dispel any doubts as to the reality and nature of the applicant's allegations (see, for example, Danilov v. Russia, no. 88/05, § 96, 1 December 2020).
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 53176/17

  GRAZULEVICIUTÄ- v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …
• EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 15669/20

  YALÇINKAYA v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 50849/21

  WA?�ĘSA v. POLAND
• EGMR - 68271/14 (anhängig)

  HALL v. ICELAND

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.08.2026 - 2170/24

  Osman Kavala

  Dans ces conditions, la manière dont la procédure a été conduite n'a pas seulement échoué à dissiper les soupçons sérieux déjà existants quant à la prédominance de motivations inavouées derrière les poursuites engagées contre le requérant, mais a au contraire contribué à les renforcer (voir, mutatis mutandis, Sytnyk c. Ukraine, no 16497/20, §§ 156-157, 24 avril 2025).
• EGMR, 07.07.2026 - 29703/19

  DE CARVALHO MARQUES v. PORTUGAL and 5 other applications

  Accordingly, it accepts that the accusations made attained the requisite level of seriousness to cause prejudice to the enjoyment by the referees concerned and the Refereeing Council of their rights under Article 8 of the Convention (compare, mutatis mutandis, Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], no. 17224/11, § 79, 27 June 2017; Stancu and Others v. Romania, no. 22953/16, § 121, 18 October 2022; and Sytnyk v. Ukraine, no. 16497/20, §§ 108-109, 24 April 2025).
• EGMR, 13.01.2026 - 54353/20

  VOVK v. UKRAINE

  As to the history of the Euromaidan investigation in which the disclosed material was obtained, the Court observes that it was initiated not by NABU but by the PGO, with whom NABU actually had a "certain degree of antagonism" (see Sytnyk v. Ukraine, no. 16497/20, §§ 12-13 and 154, 24 April 2025).
• EGMR, 31.03.2026 - 47934/17

  DMITRIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Rn. 113 The Court further notes that the case file contains no statements or interference by high-ranking public officials that would suggest an ulterior motive behind the applicant's detention or criminal conviction (compare Sytnyk v. Ukraine, no. 16497/20, § 153, 24 April 2025, and Kutayev v. Russia, no. 17912/15, § 140, 24 January 2023).
• EGMR - 26634/20 (anhängig)

  PASHYNSKYY v. UKRAINE

  Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 5 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by these provisions, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention (see, for example, Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, §§ 287-317, 28 November 2017; and, mutatis mutandis, Sytnyk v. Ukraine, no. 16497/20, §§ 137-44, 24 April 2025)?.