Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 19312/06   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2009,60955
EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 19312/06 (https://dejure.org/2009,60955)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12.03.2009 - 19312/06 (https://dejure.org/2009,60955)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12. März 2009 - 19312/06 (https://dejure.org/2009,60955)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,60955) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    VERGELSKYY v. UKRAINE

    Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
    Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

 
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 ... (25)Zitiert selbst (21)

  • EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 66561/01

    MERIT v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 19312/06
    As regards the end of the "time", in criminal matters the period governed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention covers the whole of the proceedings in issue, including appeal proceedings ( see Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, § 70, 30 March 2004).

    The Court further refers to its finding in the Merit case about the lack of an effective and accessible remedy under domestic law for complaints in respect of the length of criminal proceedings (see Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, §§ 78-79, 30 March 2004).

  • EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 38722/02

    AFANASYEV v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 19312/06
    On three occasions in the course of the investigation (in October 2005, April 2006 and April 2007 the Town Court also separately addressed the Prosecutors" Office instructing it to take measures in respect of the continued non-execution of the court's instructions by the investigating authorities. Referring to the cases of Kmetty v. Hungary (cited above) and Afanasyev v. Ukraine, (no. 38722/02, 5 April 2005) the court found that the criminal inquiry conducted had not been sufficiently thorough.

    Having regard to these considerations and to the comparable case-law (see, for example, Afanasyev v. Ukraine, no. 38722/02, § 84, 5 April 2005; Kozinets, cited above, § 73; Kobets, cited above, § 64 and Lugovoy v. Ukraine, no. 25821/02, § 46, 12 June 2008), the Court awards the applicant, on an equitable basis, EUR 10, 000 for non-pecuniary damage.

  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

    Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 19312/06
    The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI).
  • EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94
    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 19312/06
    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 following criteria: the complexity of the case, 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, 12.03.2009 - 19312/06
    The Court further recalls that for the period of nine months 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 e.g. 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, 02.03.2006 - 55669/00

    NAKHMANOVICH v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 19312/06
    It further notes that an accused in criminal proceedings should be entitled to have his case conducted with special diligence and Article 6 is, in criminal matters, designed to avoid that a person charged should remain too long in a state of uncertainty about his fate (see, Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, § 89, 2 March 2006 and Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, § 71, 7 December 2006).
  • EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 15007/02

    IVANOV v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 19312/06
    It further notes that an accused in criminal proceedings should be entitled to have his case conducted with special diligence and Article 6 is, in criminal matters, designed to avoid that a person charged should remain too long in a state of uncertainty about his fate (see, Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, § 89, 2 March 2006 and Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, § 71, 7 December 2006).
  • EGMR, 22.07.2003 - 29484/95

    ESEN c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 19312/06
    Bearing in mind the authorities" obligation to account for injuries caused to persons under their control, the Court considers that failure to find State agents guilty of a crime of violence against a detainee, as in the instant case, cannot absolve the State of its responsibility under the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Esen v. Turkey, no. 29484/95, § 28; Yaz v. Turkey, no. 29485/95, § 30; Ayse Tepe v. Turkey, no. 29422/95, 22 July 2003).
  • EGMR, 22.07.2003 - 29485/95

    YAZ c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 19312/06
    Bearing in mind the authorities" obligation to account for injuries caused to persons under their control, the Court considers that failure to find State agents guilty of a crime of violence against a detainee, as in the instant case, cannot absolve the State of its responsibility under the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Esen v. Turkey, no. 29484/95, § 28; Yaz v. Turkey, no. 29485/95, § 30; Ayse Tepe v. Turkey, no. 29422/95, 22 July 2003).
  • EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 25821/02

    LUGOVOY v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 19312/06
    Having regard to these considerations and to the comparable case-law (see, for example, Afanasyev v. Ukraine, no. 38722/02, § 84, 5 April 2005; Kozinets, cited above, § 73; Kobets, cited above, § 64 and Lugovoy v. Ukraine, no. 25821/02, § 46, 12 June 2008), the Court awards the applicant, on an equitable basis, EUR 10, 000 for non-pecuniary damage.
  • EGMR, 22.07.2003 - 29422/95

    AYSE TEPE c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

    Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

    Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  • EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
  • EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

    VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  • EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87
  • EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01

    MIKHEYEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 36898/03

    TREPASHKIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 75520/01

    KOZINETS v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 16437/04

    KOBETS v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 21984/05

    GOREA v. MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 23893/03

    KAVERZIN v. UKRAINE

    For instance, during the 1100th meeting on 1-2 December 2010 eight such judgments were put on the Committee's agenda, namely Afanasyev v. Ukraine (no. 38722/02, 5 April 2005), Kozinets v. Ukraine (no. 75520/01, 6 December 2007), Kobets v. Ukraine (no. 16437/04, 14 February 2008), Ismailov v. Ukraine (no. 17323/04, 27 November 2008), Spinov v. Ukraine (no. 34331/03, 27 November 2008), Suptel v. Ukraine (no. 39188/04, 19 February 2009), Vergelskyy v. Ukraine (no. 19312/06, 12 March 2009) and Drozd v. Ukraine (no. 12174/03, 30 July 2009).
  • EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 29175/04

    [ENG]

    Viewing facts of the present case in light of the general principles determined in its case-law (see, for example, Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, §§ 108-111, Series A no. 241-A; Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336 and Vergelskyy v. Ukraine, no. 19312/06, § 106, 12 March 2009), the Court notes that according to expert findings of 23 November 2002 and 27 January 2005, which the parties did not challenge, the applicant sustained bruises, abrasions and other injuries on various parts of his body, which could have been inflicted on 18 November 2002 (the day of his placement in custody) by multiple impacts with blunt objects (see paragraphs 18 and 31 above).

    The Court finds that the factual circumstances surrounding the investigation of the applicant's complaint of ill-treatment in the present case are similar to the situations in which it has found violations in a number of recent cases (see, inter alia, Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, §§ 112-113 and 120-121, 26 January 2006; Kobets v. Ukraine, no. 16437/04, §§ 53-56, 14 February 2008; and Vergelskyy v. Ukraine, no. 19312/06, § 102, 12 March 2009).

  • EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

    MIKHNO v. UKRAINE

    The guarantees of Article 13 do not, therefore, apply to her complaint (see, mutatis mutandis, Vergelskyy v. Ukraine, no. 19312/06, § 124, 12 March 2009).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht