Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TARAN v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5+5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion) Violation of Article 5+5-3 - Right to liberty and ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Taran v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  TARAN v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 31898/06
• EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 31898/06

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (20)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 31898/06

  The Court reiterates 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, and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 31898/06

  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, 23.02.2012 - 30671/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 31898/06

  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, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 31898/06

  The Court observes that it has rejected non-exhaustion arguments similar to those raised by the Government in the present case (see, for example, Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 69-71, 28 March 2006; Yakovenko, cited above, §§ 75-76; Koktysh, cited above, § 86; Logvinenko v. Ukraine, no. 13448/07, § 57, 14 October 2010; Iglin v. Ukraine, no. 39908/05, § 43, 12 January 2012; and Belyaev and Digtyar v. Ukraine, nos.
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 15825/06

  YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 31898/06

  The relevant international and domestic materials concerning conditions of detention and transportation can be found in the judgments of Yakovenko v. Ukraine (no. 15825/06, §§ 56-61, 25 October 2007), and Koktysh v. Ukraine (no. 43707/07, §§ 39-42, 10 December 2009).
• EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 43707/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 31898/06

  The relevant international and domestic materials concerning conditions of detention and transportation can be found in the judgments of Yakovenko v. Ukraine (no. 15825/06, §§ 56-61, 25 October 2007), and Koktysh v. Ukraine (no. 43707/07, §§ 39-42, 10 December 2009).
• EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 65559/01

  NESTAK v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 31898/06

  Article 5 § 1 of the Convention requires that 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 Nesták v. Slovakia, no. 65559/01, § 74, 27 February 2007).
• EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 31898/06

  Having regard to the close affinity between the relevant principles developed under Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention, the Court shall consider the present complaint under both provisions simultaneously (for a similar approach see Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, § 38, 19 January 2012, and Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, §§ 161-164, 17 January 2013).
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 13448/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 31898/06

  The Court observes that it has rejected non-exhaustion arguments similar to those raised by the Government in the present case (see, for example, Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 69-71, 28 March 2006; Yakovenko, cited above, §§ 75-76; Koktysh, cited above, § 86; Logvinenko v. Ukraine, no. 13448/07, § 57, 14 October 2010; Iglin v. Ukraine, no. 39908/05, § 43, 12 January 2012; and Belyaev and Digtyar v. Ukraine, nos.
• EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 39908/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 31898/06

  The Court observes that it has rejected non-exhaustion arguments similar to those raised by the Government in the present case (see, for example, Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 69-71, 28 March 2006; Yakovenko, cited above, §§ 75-76; Koktysh, cited above, § 86; Logvinenko v. Ukraine, no. 13448/07, § 57, 14 October 2010; Iglin v. Ukraine, no. 39908/05, § 43, 12 January 2012; and Belyaev and Digtyar v. Ukraine, nos.
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 38717/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 43374/02

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 9190/03

  BECCIEV v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 17116/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 17650/02

  GAVAZHUK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 16984/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 3299/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16447/04

  NIKOLAY KUCHERENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 2161/02

  MOLODORYCH v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 24.11.2011 - 19213/04

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.03.2015 - 28718/09

  KOTIY v. UKRAINE

  The relevant provisions of the Compensation Act can be found in the judgment of Taran v. Ukraine, no. 31898/06, §§ 42 and 43, 17 October 2013.

  It has found that the right to compensation under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention was not ensured in the domestic legal system should the Strasbourg Court establish a violation of any preceding paragraphs of that Article (see Taran v. Ukraine, no. 31898/06, § 89, 17 October 2013, with further references).

• 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, 06.10.2016 - 30198/11

  STROGAN v. UKRAINE

  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, 12.02.2015 - 74297/11

  PODVEZKO v. UKRAINE

  Having regard to the close affinity between the relevant principles developed under Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention, the Court will consider the present complaint under both provisions simultaneously (see Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, § 38, 19 January 2012, Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, §§ 161-164, 17 January 2013 and Taran v. Ukraine, no. 31898/06, § 70, 17 October 2013).

  The Court has already found that Ukrainian law, as it stood at the relevant time, did not provide a procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of continued detention after the completion of pre-trial investigations that satisfied the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Molodorych v. Ukraine, no. 2161/02, § 108, 28 October 2010; Pleshkov v. Ukraine, no. 37789/05, § 42, 10 February 2011; Kharchenko, cited above, § 100; Tsygoniy v. Ukraine, no. 19213/04, § 78, 24 November 2011; and Taran v. Ukraine, no. 31898/06, § 81, 17 October 2013).

• EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 28472/08

  NAUMIK v. UKRAINE (II)

  The Court has found in similar previous cases that the right to compensation under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention was not ensured in the Ukrainian legal system, should the Court find a violation of any preceding paragraphs of that Article (see Taran v. Ukraine, no. 31898/06, § 89, 17 October 2013, with further references).
• EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 21262/06

  LIVADA v. UKRAINE

  The Court has already found that Ukrainian law, as it stood at the relevant time, did not provide a procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of continued detention after the completion of pre-trial investigations that satisfied the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Molodorych v. Ukraine, no. 2161/02, § 108, 28 October 2010; Pleshkov v. Ukraine, no. 37789/05, § 42, 10 February 2011; Kharchenko, cited above, § 100; Tsygoniy v. Ukraine, no. 19213/04, § 78, 24 November 2011; and Taran v. Ukraine, no. 31898/06, § 81, 17 October 2013).
• EGMR, 20.10.2016 - 5462/10

  RUSYN v. UKRAINE

  The Court notes that it has frequently found violations of Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention in situations similar to the present case (see, among numerous other cases, Molodorych v. Ukraine, no. 2161/02, § 108, 28 October 2010, Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 70-76, 80-81, 85 and 100, 10 February 2011, Pleshkov v. Ukraine, no. 37789/05, § 42, 10 February 2011, Tretyakov v. Ukraine, no. 16698/05, §§ 51-52 and 59-60, 29 September 2011, Taran v. Ukraine, no. 31898/06, § 81, 17 October 2013, Temchenko v. Ukraine, no. 30579/10, §§ 107-109, 116 and 117, 16 July 2015, and Kushch v. Ukraine, no. 53865/11, §§ 116-126, 3 December 2015).

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TARAN v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 7, Art. 13, Art. 35 MRK
  Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 31898/06
• EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 31898/06

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 15825/06

  YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 31898/06

  Details on such materials can be found in the judgments of Yakovenko v. Ukraine (no. 15825/06, §§ 56-61, 25 October 2007) and Koktysh v. Ukraine (no. 43707/07, §§ 39-42, 10 December 2009).
• EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 43707/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 31898/06

  Details on such materials can be found in the judgments of Yakovenko v. Ukraine (no. 15825/06, §§ 56-61, 25 October 2007) and Koktysh v. Ukraine (no. 43707/07, §§ 39-42, 10 December 2009).
• EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 2161/02

  MOLODORYCH v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 31898/06

  The relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure ("the CCP") can be found in the judgment in the case of Molodorych v. Ukraine (no. 2161/02, §§ 57-59, 28 October 2010).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen