Webinar: Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten am Di. den 27. Oktober 2026 11:30 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden
×
×
Doctrine-WebinarNicht verpassen
Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten am Di. den 27. Oktober 2026 11:30 - 12:00 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2012,15725
EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05 (https://dejure.org/2012,15725)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19.01.2012 - 39884/05 (https://dejure.org/2012,15725)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19. Januar 2012 - 39884/05 (https://dejure.org/2012,15725)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,15725) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KORNEYKOVA v. UKRAINE

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 41 MRK
    Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 5-1-c Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-5 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

 
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 ... (35)Zitiert selbst (15)

  • EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 33210/07

    DUBOVIK v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05
    33210/07 and 41866/08, § 34, 15 October 2009.

    It further reiterates that Article 5 § 5 of the Convention is complied with where it is possible to apply for compensation in respect of a deprivation of liberty effected in conditions contrary to one of the preceding paragraphs of Article 5 of the Convention, as established either by a domestic authority or by the Court (see Dubovik v. Ukraine, nos. 33210/07 and 41866/08, § 71, 15 October 2009).

  • EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84
    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05
    The Court reiterates that Article 35 of the Convention requires that complaints made before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance, and be in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law and, further, that any procedural methods that might prevent a breach of the Convention should have been used (see Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200).
  • EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

    MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05
    This is particularly so where there is a need to advance new arguments for release or where the arguments are closely connected to the applicant's character and personal situation (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 91-92, 1 June 2006; Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 37138/06, § 207, 9 November 2010; and Michalko v. Slovakia, no. 35377/05, §§ 159-161, 21 December 2010).
  • EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 37138/06

    FARHAD ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05
    This is particularly so where there is a need to advance new arguments for release or where the arguments are closely connected to the applicant's character and personal situation (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 91-92, 1 June 2006; Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 37138/06, § 207, 9 November 2010; and Michalko v. Slovakia, no. 35377/05, §§ 159-161, 21 December 2010).
  • EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01

    REINPRECHT c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05
    Although it is not always necessary that the procedure under Article 5 § 4 be attended by the same guarantees as those required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for criminal or civil litigation, it must have a judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question (see Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, § 31, ECHR 2005-..., with further references).
  • EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 35377/05

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05
    This is particularly so where there is a need to advance new arguments for release or where the arguments are closely connected to the applicant's character and personal situation (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 91-92, 1 June 2006; Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 37138/06, § 207, 9 November 2010; and Michalko v. Slovakia, no. 35377/05, §§ 159-161, 21 December 2010).
  • EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 19223/04

    VLADIMIR FEDOROV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05
    Once this burden of proof has been satisfied, it falls to the applicant to establish that the remedy advanced by the Government has in fact been used or was for some reason inadequate and ineffective in the particular circumstances of the case, or that there existed special circumstances absolving him or her from the requirement (see Vladimir Fedorov v. Russia, no. 19223/04, § 39, 30 July 2009).
  • EGMR, 10.01.2006 - 21768/02

    SELÇUK v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05
    Further, a very important factor in the balancing exercise is a defendant's age: thus, pre-trial detention of minors should be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest possible period (Selçuk v. Turkey, no. 21768/02, §§ 35-36, 10 January 2006, and Nart v. Turkey, no. 20817/04, §§ 31 and 33, 6 May 2008).
  • EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11152/84
    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05
    The Court considers that Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention must be read in conjunction with Article 5 § 3, which forms a whole with it (see Ciulla v. Italy, 22 February 1989, § 38, Series A no. 148, and Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, §§ 56 and 71, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)), and that the complaint at issue may be considered under both provisions simultaneously.
  • EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

    BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05
    It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-III).
  • EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

    SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 65559/01

    NESTAK v. SLOVAKIA

  • EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 4634/04

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 1727/04

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 38717/04

    [ENG]

  • 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, 06.07.2023 - 36314/15

    GANYSH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Lebedev v. Russia (no. 4493/04, §§ 109-15, 25 October 2007), Korneykova v. Ukraine (no. 39884/05, §§ 69-73, 19 January 2012) and Nechay v. Ukraine, (no. 15360/10, 1 July 2021).

    25 October 2007, Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, §§ 69-73, 19 January 2012).

  • EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 44475/08

    KARELSKIY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Merit v. Ukraine (no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004), Kharchenko v. Ukraine (cited above) and Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, § 80, 19 January 2012.

    It was not possible for the applicant to receive compensation for the unlawful detention (see Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, § 80, 19 January 2012).

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht