Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TODOROV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Todorov v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 16717/05

  The Court observes that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 16717/05

  The Court further notes that for the entire period of the criminal proceedings the applicant in the present case was held in custody - a fact which required particular diligence on the part of the authorities dealing with the case to administer justice expeditiously (see, for example, Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 83, ECHR 2003-IX, and Yurtayev v. Ukraine, no. 11336/02, § 37, 31 January 2006).
• EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 22313/04

  LEONID LAZARENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 16717/05

  Examining the facts of the present case in light of the principles developed in its case-law (see, for example, Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 55, ECHR 2008 and Leonid Lazarenko v. Ukraine, no. 22313/04, §§ 49, 28 October 2010), the Court reiterates that access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right.

• EGMR, 17.11.2016 - 8865/06

  LOBODA v. UKRAINE

  Having assessed the above facts in the light of the principles established in its case-law (see, in particular, Salduz, cited above, no. 36391/02, §§ 54-57, ECHR 2008; Smolik v. Ukraine, no. 11778/05, §§ 54-55, 19 January 2012; mutatis mutandis, Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 182-188, ECHR 2010; and compare with Panovits v. Cyprus, no. 4268/04, §§ 84-86, 11 December 2008; and Todorov v. Ukraine, no. 16717/05, §§ 78-81, 12 January 2012), the Court considers that the applicant has failed to provide the necessary substantiation for his allegation that the statements made by him on 6 June 2001 were, in fact, used for his conviction or that they had otherwise affected the conclusions ultimately reached by the domestic judicial authorities concerning his guilt.
• EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 78851/16

  MICHALSKI v. POLAND

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 3 in the context of delayed non-emergency medical procedures (see, mutatis mutandis, Zarzycki v. Poland, no. 15351/03, 12 March 2013; Todorov v. Ukraine, no. 16717/05, 12 January 2012; Dumikyan v. Russia, no. 2961/09, 13 December 2016; and Bujak v. Poland, no. 686/12, 21 March 2017) and of Article 6 in the context of the restriction of the right of access to a court on account of excessive court fees (Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, ECHR 2001-VI; Podbielski and PPU Polpure v. Poland, no. 39199/98, 26 July 2005, Jedamski and Jedamska v. Poland, no. 73547/01, 26 July 2005; Kniat v. Poland, no. 71731/01, 26 July 2005 and Irena Stall v. Poland (strike out) no. 5274/06, 10 March 2009).