Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KLISHYN v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 5 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-5 (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Klishyn v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (14)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 30671/04

  The Court emphasises that Article 5 of the Convention guarantees the fundamental right to liberty and security, which is of primary importance in a "democratic society" within the meaning of the Convention (see De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 18 June 1971, § 65, Series A no. 12, and Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 37, Series A no. 33).
• EGMR, 12.06.2003 - 44672/98

  Verletzung von Art. 5 Abs. 4 der Konvention durch fehlende Rechtmäßigkeitsprüfung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 30671/04

  It considers that there are no special circumstances leading to a conclusion that this period was already too long or that the review of the applicant's detention did not comply with the requirement of "speediness" (see and compare Herz v. Germany, no. 44672/98, § 73, 12 June 2003 and Shannon v. Latvia, no. 32214/03, § 74, 24 November 2009, in which the periods of eleven and fourteen days respectively were found to be in compliance with the requirement of "speediness").
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 30671/04

  All persons are entitled to the protection of that right, that is to say, not to be deprived, or to continue to be deprived, of their liberty save in accordance with the conditions specified in Article 5 § 1 (see Weeks v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, § 40, Series A no. 114).

• EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 30671/04

  Moreover, it does not appear that such a right was or is secured under any other provision of the Ukrainian legislation, given the absence of any legally envisaged procedure for bringing proceedings to seek compensation for the deprivation of liberty found to be in breach of one of the other paragraphs by the Strasbourg Court (see Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, no. 42310/04, §§ 229-234, 21 April 2011).
• EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 65559/01

  NESTAK v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 30671/04

  In order for deprivation of liberty to be considered free from such arbitrariness, it does not suffice that this measure is executed in conformity with national law; it must also be necessary in the circumstances (see Nesták v. Slovakia, no. 65559/01, § 74, 27 February 2007).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 30671/04

  It has deemed treatment to be "degrading" because it was such as to arouse in the victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 92, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 30671/04

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances or the victim's behaviour (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 30671/04

  Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336, and Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 283, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 30671/04

  The assessment of this level is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the gender, age and state of health of the victim (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 100-01, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 30671/04

  The Court reiterates that where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of the cause of the injury, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, §§ 108-111, Series A no. 241-A, and Ribitsch, cited above, p. 26, § 34).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 29447/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 7324/02

  KOBTSEV v. UKRAINE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 74820/10

  [ENG]

  The Court has already addressed this issue in a number of cases against Ukraine (see, for instance, Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, no. 42310/04, §§ 229-234, 21 April 2011; Klishyn v. Ukraine, no. 30671/04, 23 February 2012; and Taran v. Ukraine, no. 31898/06, §§ 88-90, 17 October 2013) and found that the applicants' right to compensation in comparable circumstances had been breached.
• EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 31898/06

  TARAN v. UKRAINE

  The Court further notes that the Government have not shown that the applicant's right to compensation under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention was ensured in the domestic legal system should the Strasbourg Court find a violation of any preceding paragraphs of that Article (see Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, no. 42310/04, §§ 229-234, 21 April 2011 and Klishyn v. Ukraine, no. 30671/04, § 98, 23 February 2012).
• EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 6759/11

  GAL v. UKRAINE

  The Court considers that there are no special circumstances leading to a conclusion that this period was already too long or that the review of the applicant's detention did not comply with the requirement of "speediness" (see and compare Herz v. Germany, no. 44672/98, § 73, 12 June 2003; Klishyn v. Ukraine, no. 30671/04, § 84, 23 February 2012; and Shannon v. Latvia, no. 32214/03, § 74, 24 November 2009, in which the periods of eleven, thirteen and fourteen days respectively were found to be in compliance with the requirement of "speediness").
• EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 40939/05

  [ENG]

  The Court has already addressed this issue in the cases of Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine (cited above) and Klishyn v. Ukraine (no. 30671/04, 23 February 2012) and found that the applicants" right to compensation in similar circumstances had been breached.
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 37467/04

  JURIJS DMITRIJEVS c. LETTONIE

  S'agissant du volet matériel de l'article 3 de la Convention, la Cour estime que les coups infligés au requérant par les gardiens de la prison centrale, coups qui ont laissé « des ecchymoses dans la région thoracique autour de l'omoplate et du côté gauche de la région lombaire'(paragraphe 13 ci-dessus) ont atteint le seuil minimum de gravité pour être qualifié de traitement contraire à la disposition précitée (voir, mutatis mutandis, Klishyn c. Ukraine, no 30671/04, §§ 62 et 70, 23 février 2012).