Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 37789/05
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 37789/05
• EGMR - 37789/05 (anhängig)

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PLESHKOV v. UKRAINE

  Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 37789/05
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 37789/05
• EGMR - 37789/05

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 37789/05

  The above complaint falls to be examined under Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00

  NEVMERZHITSKY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 37789/05

  The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) are to be found in the judgments in the following cases: Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, §§ 53-54, ECHR 2005-II (extracts), Kucheruk v. Ukraine, no. 2570/04, §§ 67-69, ECHR 2007-..., and Sergey Volosyuk v. Ukraine, no. 1291/03, §§ 24-25, 12 March 2009.
• EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 2570/04

  KUCHERUK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 37789/05

  The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) are to be found in the judgments in the following cases: Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, §§ 53-54, ECHR 2005-II (extracts), Kucheruk v. Ukraine, no. 2570/04, §§ 67-69, ECHR 2007-..., and Sergey Volosyuk v. Ukraine, no. 1291/03, §§ 24-25, 12 March 2009.
• EGMR, 20.11.2007 - 45198/04

  K.-H. G.gegen Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 37789/05

  The Court underlines that on the question whether a detention - as opposed to a conviction - is "lawful", including whether it complies with "a procedure prescribed by law", the Convention refers back essentially to national law and states the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof (see Karl-Heinz Gruber v. Germany (dec.), no. 45198/04, 20 November 2007).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PLESHKOV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 37789/05
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 37789/05
• EGMR - 37789/05

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 37789/05

  Such an attempt to assure a thorough and elaborate investigation should be found compatible with good administration of justice, as "a concern for speed cannot dispense... judges in the system of criminal procedure... from taking every measure likely to throw light on the truth or falsehood of the charges" (see Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, p. 43, § 21, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 37789/05

  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 (see, among many other references, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 37789/05

  The Court reiterates that, according to its well-established case-law, a person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify the continued detention (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 12, Series A no. 7, and YaÄŸcı and Sargın v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 52, Series A no. 319-A).

• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 37789/05

  The Court agrees with the Government's view concerning the period to be taken into consideration, as indeed the time when the applicant absconded (see paragraph 23 above) should be excluded from the overall length of the proceedings (see Girolami v. Italy, 19 February 1991, § 13, Series A no. 196-E, and Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 81, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)).
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 37789/05

  The Court reiterates that, according to its well-established case-law, a person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify the continued detention (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 12, Series A no. 7, and YaÄŸcı and Sargın v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 52, Series A no. 319-A).
• EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 55669/00

  NAKHMANOVICH v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 37789/05

  It further notes that an accused in criminal proceedings should be entitled to have his case conducted with special diligence, especially where he is kept in custody (see Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, § 89, 2 March 2006).
• EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16505/02

  DORONIN v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 37789/05

  The Court notes that the contested pre-trial detention of the applicant in the present case lasted for two years, two months and six days, which is not short in absolute terms (see and compare with Doronin v. Ukraine, no. 16505/02, § 61, 19 February 2009).
• EGMR, 21.09.2017 - 40107/02

  KHARCHENKO CONTRE L'UKRAINE ET 35 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 37789/05

  In this respect the Court recalls that it had already found that Ukrainian law did not provide for the procedure of review of the lawfulness of continued detention after the completion of pre-trial investigations satisfying the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Molodorych v. Ukraine, no. 2161/02, § 108, 28 October 2010).
• EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 6093/04

  JAMROZY v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 37789/05

  Also, the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, in particular the process of obtaining evidence from witnesses, constitutes a valid ground for such initial detention (see, for example, Jamrozy v. Poland, no. 6093/04, § 37, 15 September 2009).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.08.2012 - 24605/06

  [ENG]

  The circumstances of this case are similar to those examined in the judgment concerning the case Pleshkov v. Ukraine (no. 37789/05, 10 February 2011), as they concern the same criminal proceedings against both the applicant and Mr Pleshkov (see §§ 6-19 of the cited judgment).