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

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 30198/11   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2016,31562
EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 30198/11 (https://dejure.org/2016,31562)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06.10.2016 - 30198/11 (https://dejure.org/2016,31562)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06. Oktober 2016 - 30198/11 (https://dejure.org/2016,31562)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,31562) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    STROGAN v. UKRAINE

    Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - ...

Sonstiges

 
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 ... (54)Zitiert selbst (15)

  • EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

    STANEV v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 30198/11
    The effective enjoyment of the right to compensation guaranteed by Article 5 § 5 must be ensured with a sufficient degree of certainty (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 182, 17 January 2012, with further references).
  • EGMR, 05.03.2015 - 28718/09

    KOTIY v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 30198/11
    Without that specific information, the arrest report did not constitute a meaningful guarantee against arbitrary depravation of liberty (compare Grinenko v. Ukraine, no. 33627/06, § 83, 15 November 2012; Malyk v. Ukraine, no. 37198/10, §§ 27-29, 29 January 2015; and Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 45, 5 March 2015).
  • EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 6492/11

    Luzenko ./. Ukraine

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 30198/11
    That part of the reasoning appears to be irrelevant as it runs counter to important elements of the concept of a fair trial, such as freedom from self-incrimination and the presumption of innocence (see Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 6492/11, § 72, 3 July 2012).
  • EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 37198/10

    MALYK v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 30198/11
    Without that specific information, the arrest report did not constitute a meaningful guarantee against arbitrary depravation of liberty (compare Grinenko v. Ukraine, no. 33627/06, § 83, 15 November 2012; Malyk v. Ukraine, no. 37198/10, §§ 27-29, 29 January 2015; and Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 45, 5 March 2015).
  • EGMR, 15.11.2012 - 33627/06

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 30198/11
    Without that specific information, the arrest report did not constitute a meaningful guarantee against arbitrary depravation of liberty (compare Grinenko v. Ukraine, no. 33627/06, § 83, 15 November 2012; Malyk v. Ukraine, no. 37198/10, §§ 27-29, 29 January 2015; and Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 45, 5 March 2015).
  • EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16505/02

    DORONIN v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 30198/11
    The Court has often found violations of this Convention provision in respect of Ukraine in similar circumstances (see, for example, Doronin v. Ukraine, no. 16505/02, §§ 63-64, 19 February 2009; Osypenko, cited above, §§ 76-80; and Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 79-81, 99 and 101, 10 February 2011).
  • EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 31898/06

    TARAN v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 30198/11
    It must be assessed with reference to a number of other relevant factors which may either confirm the existence of a danger of absconding or make it appear so slight that it cannot justify detention pending trial (see Taran v. Ukraine, no. 31898/06, § 69, 17 October 2013, with further references).
  • EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01
    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 30198/11
    Although it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law, under Article 5 § 1 a failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention, and the Court can and should review whether that law has been complied with (see, among many other references, Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, § 41, Reports 1996-III, and Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 171, ECHR 2004-II).
  • EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 74820/10

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 30198/11
    It notes that the medical evidence, the nature of the applicant's injuries, as well as the lack of plausible and detailed explanation on the part of the Government as to the cause of the injuries, give rise to a strong adverse inference that the applicant was subjected to ill-treatment on the part of police officers (see Yaroshovets and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 74820/10, 71/11, 76/11, 83/11, and 332/11, § 85, 3 December 2015).
  • EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05

    SAVITSKYY v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 30198/11
    However, that investigative procedure did not comply with the principles of an effective remedy because the inquiring officer could only take a limited number of steps and the victim had no formal status, meaning his effective participation in the procedure was excluded (see Davydov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02, §§ 310-312, and Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, § 105, 26 July 2012).
  • EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17674/02

    DAVYDOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 1727/04

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 38717/04

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 37794/14

    NAGORSKIY v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 22.10.2018 - 35553/12

    Präventivhaft: EGMR lässt Polizei Spielraum im Umgang mit Hooligans

    (iii) Necessity 77. In the context of the first limb of subparagraph (c) of paragraph 1 (reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence) of Article 5, the Court has held that "[i]n order for deprivation of liberty to be considered free from arbitrariness, it does not suffice that this measure is executed in conformity with national law; it must also be necessary in the circumstances" (see, among other authorities, Ladent v. Poland, no. 11036/03, § 55, 18 March 2008; Khayredinov v. Ukraine, no. 38717/04, § 27, 14 October 2010; Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, §§ 34 and 43, 19 January 2012; and Strogan v. Ukraine, no. 30198/11, § 86, 6 October 2016).
  • EGMR, 01.12.2022 - 69195/17

    MARTYNCHUK v. UKRAINE and 18 other applications

    no legal basis for arrest without a prior court decision (Strogan v. Ukraine, no. 30198/11, §§ 88-89, 6 October 2016, and Grubnyk v. Ukraine, no. 58444/15, §§ 83-85, 17 September 2020).

    no legal basis for arrest without a prior court decision (Strogan v. Ukraine, no. 30198/11, §§ 88-89, 6 October 2016, and Grubnyk v. Ukraine, no. 58444/15, §§ 83-85, 17 September 2020).

    no legal basis for arrest without a prior court decision (Strogan v. Ukraine, no. 30198/11, §§ 88-89, 6 October 2016, and Grubnyk v. Ukraine, no. 58444/15, §§ 83-85, 17 September 2020).

    no legal basis for arrest without a prior court decision (Strogan v. Ukraine, no. 30198/11, §§ 88-89, 6 October 2016, and Grubnyk v. Ukraine, no. 58444/15, §§ 83-85, 17 September 2020).

    no legal basis for arrest without a prior court decision (Strogan v. Ukraine, no. 30198/11, §§ 88-89, 6 October 2016, and Grubnyk v. Ukraine, no. 58444/15, §§ 83-85, 17 September 2020).

  • EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 31557/07

    PRYGUNOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    As a result, the circumstances of the applicant's brother's death were not established and the investigative authorities concluded that it was impossible to find new evidence due to lapse of time (see, for example, Strogan v. Ukraine, no. 30198/11, § 53, 6 October 2016, 01eynikova v. Ukraine, no. 38765/05, § 80-81, 15 December 2011).

    The Court has held that such investigative procedures do not comply with the principles of an effective remedy because the inquiring officer could only take a limited number of steps and the victim had no formal status, meaning her effective participation in the procedure was excluded (see, for example, Strogan v. Ukraine, no. 30198/11, § 53, 6 October 2016).

    Such remittals have been a recurring problem in the cases against Ukraine (see, for example, Strogan v. Ukraine, no. 30198/11, § 53, 6 October 2016, 01eynikova v. Ukraine, no. 38765/05, §§ 80-81, 15 December 2011);.

    Such remittals have been a recurring problem in the cases against Ukraine (see, for example, Strogan v. Ukraine, no. 30198/11, § 53, 6 October 2016, 01eynikova v. Ukraine, no. 38765/05, §§ 80-81, 15 December 2011);.

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