Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TITARENKO v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6+6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 13+3, Art. 13+8, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) No violation of Article 5 - Right ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Titarenko v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (38)Zitiert selbst (19)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 5829/04

  Russland wegen Chodorkowski verurteilt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 31720/02

  In recent years the Court has had an opportunity to examine the issue of holding a person in a metal "cage" during court hearings in a number of cases against Georgia, Armenia and Russia (see Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, no. 1704/06, §§ 96-102, 27 January 2009; Ashot Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 34334/04, §§ 123-129, 15 June 2010; and Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, §§ 123-126, 31 May 2011).

  The Court has found a violation in this respect on numerous occasions, and summarised its case-law in the case of Khodorkovskiy v. Russia (no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011), in the following terms:.

• EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 1704/06

  RAMISHVILI AND KOKHREIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 31720/02

  In recent years the Court has had an opportunity to examine the issue of holding a person in a metal "cage" during court hearings in a number of cases against Georgia, Armenia and Russia (see Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, no. 1704/06, §§ 96-102, 27 January 2009; Ashot Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 34334/04, §§ 123-129, 15 June 2010; and Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, §§ 123-126, 31 May 2011).

  Lastly, in the recent case of Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, (no. 1704/06, §§ 98 et seq., 27 January 2009) the Court, in a very similar factual context, decided as follows:.

• EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 34334/04

  ASHOT HARUTYUNYAN v. ARMENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 31720/02

  In recent years the Court has had an opportunity to examine the issue of holding a person in a metal "cage" during court hearings in a number of cases against Georgia, Armenia and Russia (see Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, no. 1704/06, §§ 96-102, 27 January 2009; Ashot Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 34334/04, §§ 123-129, 15 June 2010; and Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, §§ 123-126, 31 May 2011).

  This approach was recently confirmed by the Court in the case of Ashot Harutyunyan v. Armenia (no. 34334/04, §§ 126 et seq., 15 June 2010) where the applicant had been kept in a metal cage during the entire proceedings before the Court of Appeal, and where the Court found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on that account.

• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 31720/02

  The Court must therefore examine whether the above interference is justifiable under paragraph 2 of Article 8. In particular, if it is not to contravene Article 8, the interference must be "in accordance with the law", pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary in a democratic society in order to achieve that aim (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, Series A no. 61, § 84, and Petra v. Romania, 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII, § 36).
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 29731/96

  Dieter Krombach

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 31720/02

  The Court further reiterates that, although not absolute, the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer, assigned officially if need be, is one of the fundamental features of a fair trial (see Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 89, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

  KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 31720/02

  This expression requires firstly that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law; it also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned, who must moreover be able to foresee its consequences for him, and be compatible with the rule of law (see Kruslin v. France and Huvig v. France, 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, § 27, and Series A no. 176-B, § 26, respectively).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11105/84

  HUVIG c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 31720/02

  This expression requires firstly that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law; it also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned, who must moreover be able to foresee its consequences for him, and be compatible with the rule of law (see Kruslin v. France and Huvig v. France, 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, § 27, and Series A no. 176-B, § 26, respectively).
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 31720/02

  The applicant's allegations suggest that the detainees had less than 2 sq.m. of living space which is far below the standards developed in the Court's case-law (see, among other authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 97, ECHR 2002-VI; and Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, § 103, 28 March 2006).
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 31720/02

  Thus, in the case of Sarban v. Moldova (no. 3456/05, § 90, 4 October 2005) the applicant was brought to court in handcuffs and held in a cage during the hearings, even though he was under guard and was wearing a surgical collar (see, a contrario, the case of Potapov v. Russia ((dec.), no. 14934/03, 1 August 2006).
• EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 15591/03

  SELEZNEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 31720/02

  Furthermore, it has not been shown that the applicant at any moment availed himself of the right to bring this issue to the attention of the court which heard the case (see Seleznev v. Russia, no. 15591/03, § 69, 26 June 2008).
• EGMR, 06.06.2019 - 39941/07

  AKHUNDOV AGAINST AZERBAIJAN AND 12 OTHER CASES
• EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 8721/05

  ISTRATII v. MOLDOVA
• EKMR, 12.01.1998 - 37998/97

  MEERBREY v. GERMANY
• EKMR, 09.11.1989 - 11837/85

  AUGUSTE contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00

  NEVMERZHITSKY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
• EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 8217/04

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.07.2026 - 24465/23

  KOLESNYK v. UKRAINE and 3 other applications

  Rn. 60 The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (compare Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 61, 5 July 2016; Kuc v. Slovakia, no. 37498/14, §§ 34-35, 25 July 2017l; and Titarenko v. Ukraine, no. 31720/02, § 65, 20 September 2012), finds that the complaints at issue fall to be examined from the standpoint of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:.

  However, the Court observes that in some cases it found no violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of even longer periods of pre-trial detention (see, for example, Van der Tang, cited above, §§ 58-76, 3 years and 1 month, Chraidi v. Germany, no. 65655/01, §§ 33, 44-48, ECHR 2006-XII, 5 years and 6 months, Buta v. Poland, no. 18368/02, §§ 29-48, 28 November 2006, 2 years and 6 months, Titarenko v. Ukraine, no. 31720/02, § 74, 20 September 2012, 3 years and almost 8 months, Ereren v. Germany, no. 67522/09, §§ 53-66, 6 November 2014, 5 years and 8 months, Gábor Nagy v. Hungary (no. 2), no. 73999/14, §§ 66-80, 11 April 2017, almost 3 years, Štvrtecký v. Slovakia, no. 55844/12, §§ 56-72, 5 June 2018, 3 years and 8 months).

• EGMR, 12.05.2017 - 21980/04

  SIMEONOVI v. BULGARIA

  Dans Titarenko c. Ukraine (no 31720/02, § 87, 20 septembre 2012), la Cour a déclaré ceci:.
• EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 50541/08
  It is true that in Titarenko v. Ukraine, no. 31720/02, § 87, 20 September 2012, the Court did not consider the fact that the applicant there had repeated his confession in the presence of his lawyer to undermine its finding that his rights had been irretrievably prejudiced.

• EGMR, 27.10.2020 - 29084/07

  AYETULLAH AY v. TURKEY

  At this juncture, the Court reiterates its well-established case-law that any conversation between a detained criminal suspect and the police must be treated as formal contact and cannot be characterised as informal questioning or interview (mülakat), as was indicated in the search-and-seizure report dated 29 October 2004 in the instant case (see Titarenko v. Ukraine, 31720/02, § 87, 20 September 2012).
• EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 27582/07

  ÇELEBI v. TURKEY

  In sum, the prejudice caused to the overall fairness of the proceedings by the restriction of the right to a lawyer cannot be undone merely by an applicant's confirmation of his or her earlier statements given in the absence of a lawyer at a later stage and in the presence of a lawyer, unless that flaw is sufficiently addressed and remedied by the national courts, that is to say by exclusion of statements taken without a lawyer present (see Beuze, cited above, § 171; Chopenko v. Ukraine, no. 17735/06, § 52, 15 January 2015; and Titarenko v. Ukraine, no. 31720/02, § 87 in fine, 20 September 2012).
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 30582/04

  [ENG]

  In particular, they did not provide any details on how the cage had been placed in relation to the lawyers' seats, or whether communication between them through the metal bars had been restricted in any way (compare with Titarenko v. Ukraine, no. 31720/02, §§ 91-92, 20 September 2012, and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 54825/00

  NEVMERZHITSKY CONTRE L'UKRAINE ET 33 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  31720/02.
• EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 13810/04

  [ENG]

  Dans ces conditions, la Cour ne voit aucune raison qui justifiât d'exclure le requérant du bénéfice des garanties pertinentes dans le cadre de ses contacts avec la police (sur les contacts informels entre la personne interpellée et la police, voir Titarenko c. Ukraine, no 31720/02, § 87, 20 septembre 2012).
• EGMR, 25.03.2021 - 38718/16

  ALEKSANDROVSKAYA v. UKRAINE

  The Court observes that holding defendants in metal cages during court hearings was standard procedure in Ukraine (see Titarenko v. Ukraine, no. 31720/02, § 41, 20 September 2012, and Korban v. Ukraine, no. 26744/16, § 132, 4 July 2019).
• EGMR, 11.04.2019 - 14486/07

  MALYY v. UKRAINE

  The Court observes that holding defendants, even those who have not been convicted, in metal cages during a court hearing appeared to be standard procedure in Ukraine (compare Titarenko v. Ukraine, no. 31720/02, §§ 41 and 63-64, 20 September 2012).
• EGMR, 23.07.2026 - 39465/23
• EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 56540/14

  SUSLOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 05.03.2026 - 46839/17

  ZINCHENKO v. UKRAINE and 4 other applications
• EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 7000/17

  DANILENKO c. RUSSIE et 1 autre affaire
• EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 4772/06

  KOMAROV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 50933/18 (anhängig)

  MELNYK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 02.02.2017 - 34515/04

  KULIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 35985/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.12.2016 - 16995/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 18041/08

  TRUTEN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 7433/05

  KRIVOSHEY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 69250/11

  ALEKSANDR SMIRNOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 28.01.2021 - 43374/14

  KONOPLYOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 10.09.2020 - 41303/11

  IVASHCHENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 12.02.2026 - 10749/16

  NOVIKOV v. UKRAINE and 4 other applications
• EGMR, 02.10.2025 - 37327/21

  OLIYNYK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 17.07.2025 - 46673/18

  OPALENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 12.10.2023 - 47320/15

  BEZOBRAZOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 34263/16

  GALYCHYY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 79249/13

  KLASIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 24710/06

  YAROVENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 26.01.2016 - 60201/09

  GATTO c. ITALIE
• EGMR - 5616/13 (anhängig)

  KONOREV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 11551/13

  POLTORATSKYY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 72510/12

  TURDIKHOJAEV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 21.03.2019 - 30315/10

  BIGUN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 05.07.2018 - 32791/17

  GAPYEYEV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 12.04.2018 - 33641/17

  SUKHYNIN v. UKRAINE