Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OVCHARENKO AND KOLOS v. UKRAINE

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  OVCHARENKO v. UKRAINE and 1 other application

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 18 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (17)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 44158/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2023 - 27276/15

  The interpretation and application of such enactments depend on practice (see Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no. 44158/98, § 64, ECHR 2004-I).
• EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2023 - 27276/15

  According to the Court's case-law, even where an adjudicatory body determining disputes over "civil rights and obligations" does not comply with Article 6 § 1 in some respect, no violation of the Convention can be found if the proceedings before that body are "subject to subsequent control by a judicial body that has full jurisdiction and does provide the guarantees of Article 6 § 1" (see Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, 10 February 1983, § 29, Series A no. 58, and Tsfayo v. the United Kingdom, no. 60860/00, § 42, 14 November 2006).
• EGMR, 19.12.1994 - 15153/89

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2023 - 27276/15

  It may therefore be necessary for the authorities to formulate such rules more broadly (see Vereinigung demokratischer Soldaten Österreichs and Gubi v. Austria, 19 December 1994, § 31, Series A no. 302).

• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 42883/11

  KHALIKOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2023 - 27276/15

  Where it has been shown that the interference was not in accordance with the law, a violation of Article 8 will normally be found without investigating whether the interference pursued a "legitimate aim" or was "necessary in a democratic society" (see, for example, Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 104, 19 June 2007; Khalikova v. Azerbaijan, no. 42883/11, § 128, 22 October 2015; Chukayev v. Russia, no. 36814/06, § 137, 5 November 2015; and Porowski v. Poland, no. 34458/03, § 171, 21 March 2017).
• EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 11423/19

  GUMENYUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2023 - 27276/15

  The Court previously held on several occasions that disputes regarding the removal of judges in Ukraine concerned a "right" within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention and that in such matters it was not justified to exclude members of the judiciary from the protection of the civil limb of Article 6 on the basis of the special bond of loyalty and trust to the State (see, among other authorities, Oleksandr Volkov, cited above, §§ 87-91, and Gumenyuk and Others v. Ukraine, no. 11423/19, §§ 44 to 67, 22 July 2021, with further references).
• EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 60860/00

  TSFAYO v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2023 - 27276/15

  According to the Court's case-law, even where an adjudicatory body determining disputes over "civil rights and obligations" does not comply with Article 6 § 1 in some respect, no violation of the Convention can be found if the proceedings before that body are "subject to subsequent control by a judicial body that has full jurisdiction and does provide the guarantees of Article 6 § 1" (see Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, 10 February 1983, § 29, Series A no. 58, and Tsfayo v. the United Kingdom, no. 60860/00, § 42, 14 November 2006).
• EGMR, 02.04.2020 - 39331/09

  JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN and 4 other applications

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2023 - 27276/15

  The extent to which this duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision and must be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case (see, Mazahir Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, (no. 39331/09, §§ 34-35, 2 April 2020, with further references).
• EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 32314/14

  DAHAN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2023 - 27276/15

  Thirdly, in order to assess whether, in a given case, the extent of the review carried out by the domestic courts was sufficient, it is necessary to have regard to the powers of the judicial body in question and to such factors as: (a) the subject-matter of the dispute; (b) the procedural safeguards existing in the administrative procedure subject to judicial review; (c) the method and scope of the actual judicial review (see, mutatis mutandis, Dahan v. France, no. 32314/14, § 51, 3 November 2022).
• EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 36814/06

  CHUKAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2023 - 27276/15

  Where it has been shown that the interference was not in accordance with the law, a violation of Article 8 will normally be found without investigating whether the interference pursued a "legitimate aim" or was "necessary in a democratic society" (see, for example, Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 104, 19 June 2007; Khalikova v. Azerbaijan, no. 42883/11, § 128, 22 October 2015; Chukayev v. Russia, no. 36814/06, § 137, 5 November 2015; and Porowski v. Poland, no. 34458/03, § 171, 21 March 2017).
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11

  Denisov v. Ukraine

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2023 - 27276/15

  There are two ways in which a private-life issue would usually arise in such a dispute: either because of the underlying reasons for the impugned measure (in that event the Court employs the reason-based approach) or - in certain cases - because of the consequences for private life (in that event the Court employs the consequence-based approach) (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 115, 25 September 2018).
• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 15367/14

  SHMORGUNOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 21.03.2024 - 34949/21

  ZHMYLEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.02.2025 - 56310/15

  K.P. v. POLAND

  The Court cannot therefore conclude that the impugned disciplinary sanction affected the applicant's long-term opportunities for establishing and maintaining his professional life to the extent that is deemed necessary under the consequence-based approach (see Ballıktaş Bingöllü, cited above, § 60; and contrast, mutatis mutandis, Budimir v. Croatia, no. 44691/14, § 47, 16 December 2021; Ovcharenko and Kolos v. Ukraine, nos. 27276/15 and 33692/15, § 86, 12 January 2023).

  The Court cannot therefore conclude that the impugned disciplinary sanction affected the applicant's long-term opportunities for establishing and maintaining his professional life to the extent that is deemed necessary under the consequence-based approach (see Ballıktaş Bingöllü, cited above, § 60; and contrast, mutatis mutandis, Budimir v. Croatia, no. 44691/14, § 47, 16 December 2021; Ovcharenko and Kolos v. Ukraine, nos. 27276/15 and 33692/15, § 86, 12 January 2023).

• EGMR, 25.06.2026 - 474/21

  SHEVCHUK v. UKRAINE

  The Court has already held, applying the consequence-based approach, that dismissal from the position of judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine for "breach of oath" interfered with a judge's "private life" (see Ovcharenko and Kolos v. Ukraine, nos. 27276/15 and 33692/15, § 86, 12 January 2023, Golovin v. Ukraine, no. 47052/18, § 22, 13 July 2023, see also, concerning the dismissal of a Supreme Court judge, Oleksandr Volkov, cited above, § 166).
• EGMR, 05.05.2026 - 30989/20

  GEROVSKA-POPCHEVSKA v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  27276/15 and 33692/15, § 86, 12 January 2023, and Juszczyszyn v. Poland, no. 35599/20, § 233, 6 October 2022).

• EGMR, 26.11.2024 - 6035/17

  NDI S.A. v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  The Court considers that the appellate court's summary reply to the arguments cannot be considered as sufficient (see, mutatis mutandis, Ovcharenko and Kolos v. Ukraine, nos. 27276/15 and 33692/15, § 126, 12 January 2023, and Samoylova v. Russia, no. 49108/11, §§ 50-51, 14 December 2021).
• EGMR, 12.05.2026 - 37954/21

  SKRCHESKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  27276/15 and 33692/15, § 86, 12 January 2023, and Juszczyszyn v. Poland, no. 35599/20, § 233, 6 October 2022).
• EGMR, 19.02.2026 - 14396/24

  SIMONCINI v. SAN MARINO

  Rn. 161 An interference with the right to respect for private life will be in breach of Article 8 of the Convention unless it can be justified under paragraph 2 of Article 8 as being "in accordance with the law", pursuing one or more of the legitimate aims listed therein, and being "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve the aim or aims concerned (see Juszczyszyn, cited above, § 260, and Ovcharenko and Kolos v. Ukraine, nos. 27276/15 and 33692/15, § 92, 12 January 2023).
• EGMR, 27.11.2025 - 54738/13

  KOZAK v. UKRAINE and 2 other applications

  Rn. 34 As to the claim for pecuniary damage in application no. 13080/17, having examined the submissions by the parties, the Court finds that the amount claimed is not corroborated by any evidence (see, for a similar approach, Ovcharenko and Kolos v. Ukraine, nos. 27276/15 and 33692/15, § 140, 12 January 2023).
• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 21141/20

  BALA v. ALBANIA

  However, the SAC's decision contained no statement that she was unworthy of serving within the justice system (compare Juszczyszyn v. Poland, no. 35599/20, §§ 233-34, 6 October 2022; Sevdari v. Albania, no. 40662/19, § 61, 13 December 2022; and Ovcharenko and Kolos v. Ukraine, nos. 27276/15 and 33692/15, § 86, 12 January 2023).
• EGMR, 04.12.2025 - 36325/22

  ORTEGA ORTEGA v. SPAIN

  Therefore, the confirmation of the applicant's dismissal by the domestic courts had clearly negative financial consequences (see, mutatis mutandis, Ovcharenko and Kolos v. Ukraine, nos. 27276/15 and 33692/15, § 86, 12 January 2023).
• EGMR, 21.11.2023 - 25240/20

  GYULUMYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA

  For that reason, the intervention of any ordinary courts was likewise inconceivable (contrast Ovcharenko and Kolos v. Ukraine, nos. 27276/15 and 33692/15, 12 January 2023, concerning the dismissal of individual Constitutional Court judges for a disciplinary offence which was open to challenge in the courts).
• EGMR, 23.10.2025 - 37358/21

  MARKUSH v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 18166/23 (anhängig)

  KUQO v. ALBANIA
• EGMR - 1093/22 (anhängig)

  NUSHI v. ALBANIA
• EGMR - 9311/22 (anhängig)

  AGOLLI v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 07.11.2024 - 53825/15

  SHAPTALA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 13.07.2023 - 47052/18

  GOLOVIN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 27.03.2025 - 16111/19

  GOLOVCHUK v. UKRAINE