Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×
Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 21.01.2021

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 15367/14, 16280/14, 18118/14, 20546/14, 24405/14, 33767/14, 42271/14, 54315/14, 19954/15, 31174/14, 36299/14, 36845/14, 42180/14, 42753/14, 21424/14, 21429/14, 32024/14, 32161/14, 32778/14, 33719/14, 33729/14, 42200/14, 42204/14, 51084/14, 58925/14, 58969   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2021,419
EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 15367/14, 16280/14, 18118/14, 20546/14, 24405/14, 33767/14, 42271/14, 54315/14, 19954/15, 31174/14, 36299/14, 36845/14, 42180/14, 42753/14, 21424/14, 21429/14, 32024/14, 32161/14, 32778/14, 33719/14, 33729/14, 42200/14, 42204/14, 51084/14, 58925/14, 58969 (https://dejure.org/2021,419)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21.01.2021 - 15367/14, 16280/14, 18118/14, 20546/14, 24405/14, 33767/14, 42271/14, 54315/14, 19954/15, 31174/14, 36299/14, 36845/14, 42180/14, 42753/14, 21424/14, 21429/14, 32024/14, 32161/14, 32778/14, 33719/14, 33729/14, 42200/14, 42204/14, 51084/14, 58925/14, 58969 (https://dejure.org/2021,419)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21. Januar 2021 - 15367/14, 16280/14, 18118/14, 20546/14, 24405/14, 33767/14, 42271/14, 54315/14, 19954/15, 31174/14, 36299/14, 36845/14, 42180/14, 42753/14, 21424/14, 21429/14, 32024/14, 32161/14, 32778/14, 33719/14, 33729/14, 42200/14, 42204/14, 51084/14, 58925/14, 58969 (https://dejure.org/2021,419)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2021,419) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    SHMORGUNOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 3 - ...

Sonstiges

 
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 ... (61)Zitiert selbst (62)

  • EGMR - 9078/14 (anhängig)

    SIRENKO v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 15367/14
    In connection with those events, Amnesty International referred, inter alia, to the cases of Mr I. Sirenko, Mr G. Cherevko and Mr V. Zagorovka, who had been injured by the police on 30 November and 1 December 2013 respectively (applications nos. 9078/14, 31174/14 and 42180/14).

    MR I. SIRENKO'S APPLICATION (No. 9078/14).

    Accordingly, the Court declares all the applicant's above complaints and, consequently, his application no. 9078/14 inadmissible, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

    However, the Court considers that in the circumstances of the present case the applicant's failure to lodge an individual complaint with the authorities could potentially contribute to the very outcome that he complains about before the Court - the alleged failure by the authorities to establish the facts, to declare relevant actions unlawful and to impose sanctions (see the Court's similar findings regarding the application by Mr I. Sirenko (no. 9078/14) in the present case at paragraph 277 above).

    9078/14.

  • EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 1774/11

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 15367/14
    Finally, the essential object of Article 11 is to protect the individual against arbitrary interference by public authorities with the exercise of the rights protected (see Kudrevičius and Others, cited above, § 158, and Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, § 72, 31 July 2014).

    There were therefore interferences with all the thirteen applicants' freedom of peaceful assembly on that account (see, Kudrevičius and Others, cited above, § 100, with further references; İzci, cited above, § 82; and Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, § 74, 31 July 2014).

  • KAG Aachen, 07.02.2006 - 30/05
    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 15367/14
    30/05/2014.

    30/05/2014.

  • EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 21429/14

    DUBOVTSEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    For the reasons stated in Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 15367/14 and 13 others, § 5, 21 January 2021, not final), those thirty-three applications could not all be joined and examined in a single judgment.

    Some of the applicants took part in it (Mr S. Khmelyovskyy, Mr E. Shevchenko, Mr V. Shevchenko, Mr Y. Bezotosnyy, Mr K. Pegarkov, Mr O. Tsyganov, Mr V. Shebanov and Mr V. Khlusov, applications nos. 21424/14, 32024/14, 32161/14, 32778/14, 33719/14 and 51084/14), whereas other applicants stated that they had not participated and had merely been present nearby (Mr V. Dubovtsev, Mr L. Babin, Mr K. Orbeladze, Mr Y. Balabay, Mr V. Lapin and Mr O. Bereza, applications nos. 21429/14, 33729/14, 42200/14 and 42204/14).

    On different dates in the period between June and November 2014 eleven of fourteen applicants, except Mr K. Orbeladze, Mr O. Tsyganov and Mr V. Shebanov (applications nos. 21429/14, 32778/14 and 33719/14), instituted civil proceedings before the Babushkinskyy District Court, seeking compensation for the non-pecuniary damage they had allegedly suffered because of their unlawful prosecution and detention.

    In so far as those decisions concerned Mr K. Pegarkov, Mr V. Lapin and Mr V. Khlusov (applications nos. 32161/14, 42200/14 and 51084/14), Mr E. Shevchenko (application no. 21424/14) and Mr L. Babin (application no. 21429/14), the court noted that the criminal proceedings against them had been terminated on "exonerating" grounds and that their detention had thus been unlawful.

    According to the documents submitted by the Government, in the period between August and September 2016 the awarded amounts were paid to Mr S. Khmelyovskyy, Mr E. Shevchenko, Mr V. Shevchenko, Mr Y. Bezotosnyy, Mr Y. Balabay, Mr V. Lapin and Mr V. Khlusov (applications nos. 21424/14, 32024/14, 33729/14, 42200/14 and 51084/14) and to Mr L. Babin in application no. 21429/14.

    The Government argued that eleven of the fourteen applicants - Mr S. Khmelyovskyy, Mr E. Shevchenko, Mr V. Shevchenko, Mr V. Dubovtsev, Mr L. Babin, Mr Y. Bezotosnyy, Mr K. Pegarkov, Mr Y. Balabay, Mr V. Lapin, Mr O. Bereza and Mr V. Khlusov (applications nos. 21424/14, 21429/14, 32024/14, 32161/14, 33729/14, 42200/14, 42204/14 and 51084/14) - could no longer be considered victims of the alleged violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention for the following reasons: the Amnesty Law of 21 February 2014 and the domestic courts had declared their criminal prosecution and detention illegal; the criminal proceedings against them had been terminated on "exonerating" grounds; and they had been awarded reasonable and sufficient compensation by the domestic courts (see paragraphs 21-25 above).

    As regards the remaining three of the fourteen applicants - Mr K. Orbeladze, Mr O. Tsyganov and Mr V. Shebanov (applications nos. 21429/14, 32778/14 and 33719/14), the Government argued that they should have lodged compensation claims with the civil courts under Article 1176 of the Civil Code of 2003 and/or the Compensation Act of 1994.

    The three remaining applicants - Mr K. Orbeladze, Mr O. Tsyganov and Mr V. Shebanov (applications nos. 21429/14, 32778/14 and 33719/14) - contended essentially that bringing a civil action under either the Compensation Act of 1994 or the Civil Code of 2003, as suggested by the Government, was not an effective remedy notably because the domestic decisions on which the Government relied (see paragraph 23 above) did not contain an acknowledgment of a violation of Article 5 or a rigorous examination of the authorities' actions.

    It follows that nine of the fourteen applicants - Mr S. Khmelyovskyy, Mr E. Shevchenko, Mr V. Shevchenko, Mr Y. Bezotosnyy, Mr K. Pegarkov, Mr Y. Balabay, Mr V. Lapin and Mr V. Khlusov (applications nos. 21424/14, 32024/14, 32161/14, 33729/14, 42200/14 and 51084/14) and Mr L. Babin in application no. 21429/14 - should be considered, in the particular circumstances of the present case, to have lost their victim status as regards their complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

    (b) Exhaustion of domestic remedies with regard to Mr K. Orbeladze, Mr O. Tsyganov and Mr V. Shebanov (applications nos. 21429/14, 32778/14 and 33719/14), who failed to lodge a civil compensation claim.

    On the basis of the above, the Court finds that Mr K. Orbeladze, Mr O. Tsyganov and Mr V. Shebanov (applications nos. 21429/14, 32778/14 and 33719/14) cannot be reproached, in the circumstances of the present case, for not having lodged compensation claims with civil courts under Article 1176 of the Civil Code of 2003 and/or the Compensation Act of 1994 for the purpose of exhaustion of domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.

    The Court finds that the complaints of Mr V. Dubovtsev, Mr K. Orbeladze, Mr O. Tsyganov, Mr V. Shebanov and Mr O. Bereza (applications nos. 21429/14, 32778/14, 33719/14 and 42204/14) under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.

    In contrast, as indicated previously, the complaints under Article 5 of the Convention of nine of the fourteen applicants - Mr S. Khmelyovskyy, Mr E. Shevchenko, Mr V. Shevchenko, Mr Y. Bezotosnyy, Mr K. Pegarkov, Mr Y. Balabay, Mr V. Lapin and Mr V. Khlusov (applications nos. 21424/14, 32024/14, 32161/14, 33729/14, 42200/14 and 51084/14) and Mr L. Babin in application no. 21429/14 - are declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

    In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the domestic authorities failed to advance sufficient reasoning and evidence to justify the detention of Mr V. Dubovtsev, Mr K. Orbeladze, Mr O. Tsyganov, Mr V. Shebanov and Mr O. Bereza (applications nos. 21429/14, 32778/14, 33719/14 and 42204/14) on the dates specified in paragraph 77 above and that their detention cannot be regarded as being free from arbitrariness.

    Mr K. Orbeladze, Mr O. Tsyganov and Mr V. Shebanov (applications nos. 21429/14, 32778/14 and 33719/14) claimed 5, 000 euros (EUR) each in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

    Declares the complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention of the unlawfulness and arbitrariness of the detention of Mr V. Dubovtsev, Mr K. Orbeladze, Mr O. Tsyganov, Mr V. Shebanov and Mr O. Bereza (applications nos. 21429/14, 32778/14, 33719/14 and 42204/14) admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;.

    Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the detention of Mr V. Dubovtsev, Mr K. Orbeladze, Mr O. Tsyganov, Mr V. Shebanov and Mr O. Bereza (applications nos. 21429/14, 32778/14, 33719/14 and 42204/14) during the periods set out in paragraph 77 above;.

    (a) that the respondent State is to pay, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 1, 200 (one thousand two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, each to Mr K. Orbeladze, Mr O. Tsyganov and Mr V. Shebanov (applications nos. 21429/14, 32778/14 and 33719/14) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;.

    33719/14.

    51084/14.

  • EGMR, 20.05.2025 - 44241/20

    EGMR verurteilt Deutschland: Strafurteil wegen selbstgebauten Plastikvisiers …

    Januar 2016, und Shmorgunov u. a. ./. Ukraine, Individualbeschwerden Nr. 15367/14 und 13 weitere, Rn. 491, 21.
  • EGMR, 25.06.2024 - 20958/14

    EGMR zur Lage auf der Krim: Russland begeht schwere Menschenrechtsverletzungen

    Additionally, at least thirteen police officers were killed and about 1, 000 were injured during those events (for more details, see Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 15367/14 and 13 others, §§ 9-17, 21 January 2021).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 21429/14, 32778/14, 33719/14, 42204/14, 21424/14, 32024/14, 32161/14, 33729/14, 42200/14, 51084/14   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2021,420
EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 21429/14, 32778/14, 33719/14, 42204/14, 21424/14, 32024/14, 32161/14, 33729/14, 42200/14, 51084/14 (https://dejure.org/2021,420)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21.01.2021 - 21429/14, 32778/14, 33719/14, 42204/14, 21424/14, 32024/14, 32161/14, 33729/14, 42200/14, 51084/14 (https://dejure.org/2021,420)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21. Januar 2021 - 21429/14, 32778/14, 33719/14, 42204/14, 21424/14, 32024/14, 32161/14, 33729/14, 42200/14, 51084/14 (https://dejure.org/2021,420)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2021,420) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    DUBOVTSEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    Remainder inadmissible (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary ...

 
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 ... (9)Zitiert selbst (15)

  • EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 15367/14

    SHMORGUNOV v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 21429/14
    For the reasons stated in Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 15367/14 and 13 others, § 5, 21 January 2021, not final), those thirty-three applications could not all be joined and examined in a single judgment.

    Some of the applicants took part in it (Mr S. Khmelyovskyy, Mr E. Shevchenko, Mr V. Shevchenko, Mr Y. Bezotosnyy, Mr K. Pegarkov, Mr O. Tsyganov, Mr V. Shebanov and Mr V. Khlusov, applications nos. 21424/14, 32024/14, 32161/14, 32778/14, 33719/14 and 51084/14), whereas other applicants stated that they had not participated and had merely been present nearby (Mr V. Dubovtsev, Mr L. Babin, Mr K. Orbeladze, Mr Y. Balabay, Mr V. Lapin and Mr O. Bereza, applications nos. 21429/14, 33729/14, 42200/14 and 42204/14).

    On different dates in the period between June and November 2014 eleven of fourteen applicants, except Mr K. Orbeladze, Mr O. Tsyganov and Mr V. Shebanov (applications nos. 21429/14, 32778/14 and 33719/14), instituted civil proceedings before the Babushkinskyy District Court, seeking compensation for the non-pecuniary damage they had allegedly suffered because of their unlawful prosecution and detention.

    In so far as those decisions concerned Mr K. Pegarkov, Mr V. Lapin and Mr V. Khlusov (applications nos. 32161/14, 42200/14 and 51084/14), Mr E. Shevchenko (application no. 21424/14) and Mr L. Babin (application no. 21429/14), the court noted that the criminal proceedings against them had been terminated on "exonerating" grounds and that their detention had thus been unlawful.

    According to the documents submitted by the Government, in the period between August and September 2016 the awarded amounts were paid to Mr S. Khmelyovskyy, Mr E. Shevchenko, Mr V. Shevchenko, Mr Y. Bezotosnyy, Mr Y. Balabay, Mr V. Lapin and Mr V. Khlusov (applications nos. 21424/14, 32024/14, 33729/14, 42200/14 and 51084/14) and to Mr L. Babin in application no. 21429/14.

    The Government argued that eleven of the fourteen applicants - Mr S. Khmelyovskyy, Mr E. Shevchenko, Mr V. Shevchenko, Mr V. Dubovtsev, Mr L. Babin, Mr Y. Bezotosnyy, Mr K. Pegarkov, Mr Y. Balabay, Mr V. Lapin, Mr O. Bereza and Mr V. Khlusov (applications nos. 21424/14, 21429/14, 32024/14, 32161/14, 33729/14, 42200/14, 42204/14 and 51084/14) - could no longer be considered victims of the alleged violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention for the following reasons: the Amnesty Law of 21 February 2014 and the domestic courts had declared their criminal prosecution and detention illegal; the criminal proceedings against them had been terminated on "exonerating" grounds; and they had been awarded reasonable and sufficient compensation by the domestic courts (see paragraphs 21-25 above).

    As regards the remaining three of the fourteen applicants - Mr K. Orbeladze, Mr O. Tsyganov and Mr V. Shebanov (applications nos. 21429/14, 32778/14 and 33719/14), the Government argued that they should have lodged compensation claims with the civil courts under Article 1176 of the Civil Code of 2003 and/or the Compensation Act of 1994.

    The three remaining applicants - Mr K. Orbeladze, Mr O. Tsyganov and Mr V. Shebanov (applications nos. 21429/14, 32778/14 and 33719/14) - contended essentially that bringing a civil action under either the Compensation Act of 1994 or the Civil Code of 2003, as suggested by the Government, was not an effective remedy notably because the domestic decisions on which the Government relied (see paragraph 23 above) did not contain an acknowledgment of a violation of Article 5 or a rigorous examination of the authorities' actions.

    It follows that nine of the fourteen applicants - Mr S. Khmelyovskyy, Mr E. Shevchenko, Mr V. Shevchenko, Mr Y. Bezotosnyy, Mr K. Pegarkov, Mr Y. Balabay, Mr V. Lapin and Mr V. Khlusov (applications nos. 21424/14, 32024/14, 32161/14, 33729/14, 42200/14 and 51084/14) and Mr L. Babin in application no. 21429/14 - should be considered, in the particular circumstances of the present case, to have lost their victim status as regards their complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

    (b) Exhaustion of domestic remedies with regard to Mr K. Orbeladze, Mr O. Tsyganov and Mr V. Shebanov (applications nos. 21429/14, 32778/14 and 33719/14), who failed to lodge a civil compensation claim.

    On the basis of the above, the Court finds that Mr K. Orbeladze, Mr O. Tsyganov and Mr V. Shebanov (applications nos. 21429/14, 32778/14 and 33719/14) cannot be reproached, in the circumstances of the present case, for not having lodged compensation claims with civil courts under Article 1176 of the Civil Code of 2003 and/or the Compensation Act of 1994 for the purpose of exhaustion of domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.

    The Court finds that the complaints of Mr V. Dubovtsev, Mr K. Orbeladze, Mr O. Tsyganov, Mr V. Shebanov and Mr O. Bereza (applications nos. 21429/14, 32778/14, 33719/14 and 42204/14) under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.

    In contrast, as indicated previously, the complaints under Article 5 of the Convention of nine of the fourteen applicants - Mr S. Khmelyovskyy, Mr E. Shevchenko, Mr V. Shevchenko, Mr Y. Bezotosnyy, Mr K. Pegarkov, Mr Y. Balabay, Mr V. Lapin and Mr V. Khlusov (applications nos. 21424/14, 32024/14, 32161/14, 33729/14, 42200/14 and 51084/14) and Mr L. Babin in application no. 21429/14 - are declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

    In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the domestic authorities failed to advance sufficient reasoning and evidence to justify the detention of Mr V. Dubovtsev, Mr K. Orbeladze, Mr O. Tsyganov, Mr V. Shebanov and Mr O. Bereza (applications nos. 21429/14, 32778/14, 33719/14 and 42204/14) on the dates specified in paragraph 77 above and that their detention cannot be regarded as being free from arbitrariness.

    Mr K. Orbeladze, Mr O. Tsyganov and Mr V. Shebanov (applications nos. 21429/14, 32778/14 and 33719/14) claimed 5, 000 euros (EUR) each in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

    Declares the complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention of the unlawfulness and arbitrariness of the detention of Mr V. Dubovtsev, Mr K. Orbeladze, Mr O. Tsyganov, Mr V. Shebanov and Mr O. Bereza (applications nos. 21429/14, 32778/14, 33719/14 and 42204/14) admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;.

    Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the detention of Mr V. Dubovtsev, Mr K. Orbeladze, Mr O. Tsyganov, Mr V. Shebanov and Mr O. Bereza (applications nos. 21429/14, 32778/14, 33719/14 and 42204/14) during the periods set out in paragraph 77 above;.

    (a) that the respondent State is to pay, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 1, 200 (one thousand two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, each to Mr K. Orbeladze, Mr O. Tsyganov and Mr V. Shebanov (applications nos. 21429/14, 32778/14 and 33719/14) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;.

    33719/14.

    51084/14.

  • VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 01.04.2005 - 16/04
    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 21429/14
    16/04/2014.

    16/04/2014.

    16/04/2014.

    16/04/2014.

    16/04/2014.

    16/04/2014.

    16/04/2014.

  • EGMR, 05.03.2015 - 28718/09

    KOTIY v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 21429/14
    In Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 38, 5 March 2015, the Court previously found that the applicant was not required to have recourse to the compensation procedure at issue, which became available to him more than two and a half years after the introduction of his application and which was not shown to be capable of addressing all the elements of his complaint under Article 5 of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 44062/09

    MERGEN c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 21429/14
    44062/09 and 4 others, §§ 36-38, 31 May 2016; Dimo Dimov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 30044/10, §§ 58 and 62, 7 July 2020; and Bilal Akyildiz v. Turkey, no. 36897/07, § 42, 15 September 2020).
  • EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 30044/10

    DIMOV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 21429/14
    44062/09 and 4 others, §§ 36-38, 31 May 2016; Dimo Dimov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 30044/10, §§ 58 and 62, 7 July 2020; and Bilal Akyildiz v. Turkey, no. 36897/07, § 42, 15 September 2020).
  • EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 36461/05

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 21429/14
    In a number of cases which concerned the somewhat similar legal framework of other Contracting States, the Court has found that claiming compensation on account of the termination of the criminal proceedings was not capable of providing redress for breaches of Article 5, where such an action could not or did not entail an assessment and/or sufficient acknowledgment of the applicants' specific complaints under that provision (see, among others, Labita, cited above, §§ 143-144; Shkarupa v. Russia, no. 36461/05, §§ 16-19, 71 and 75-78, 15 January 2015; Lyubushkin v. Russia, no. 6277/06, §§ 50-53, 22 October 2015; Shalya v. Russia [Committee], no. 27335/13, §§ 19-23, 13 November 2014; Mergen and Others v. Turkey, nos.
  • EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 27335/13

    SHALYA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 21429/14
    In a number of cases which concerned the somewhat similar legal framework of other Contracting States, the Court has found that claiming compensation on account of the termination of the criminal proceedings was not capable of providing redress for breaches of Article 5, where such an action could not or did not entail an assessment and/or sufficient acknowledgment of the applicants' specific complaints under that provision (see, among others, Labita, cited above, §§ 143-144; Shkarupa v. Russia, no. 36461/05, §§ 16-19, 71 and 75-78, 15 January 2015; Lyubushkin v. Russia, no. 6277/06, §§ 50-53, 22 October 2015; Shalya v. Russia [Committee], no. 27335/13, §§ 19-23, 13 November 2014; Mergen and Others v. Turkey, nos.
  • EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 12222/09

    ORLOVSKIY v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 21429/14
    In respect of other applicants, while the compensation decisions did contain such a finding (see paragraphs 23 and 24 above), it was not based on some irregularity in their detention, for instance absence of a reasonable suspicion or insufficient reasoning in the court decisions ordering their detention, but on the very fact that the relevant criminal proceedings had been terminated on "exonerating" grounds - namely, because no crime had been committed (ibid. and compare and contrast to the situation in Orlovskiy v. Ukraine, no. 12222/09, §§ 52-61, 2 April 2015, and Tikhonov v. Ukraine, no. 17969/09, §§ 22, 36-39, 10 December 2015, where the courts expressly found that the applicants' detention had been unlawful because of certain irregularities in the manner in which it had been imposed).
  • EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 6277/06

    LYUBUSHKIN v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 21429/14
    In a number of cases which concerned the somewhat similar legal framework of other Contracting States, the Court has found that claiming compensation on account of the termination of the criminal proceedings was not capable of providing redress for breaches of Article 5, where such an action could not or did not entail an assessment and/or sufficient acknowledgment of the applicants' specific complaints under that provision (see, among others, Labita, cited above, §§ 143-144; Shkarupa v. Russia, no. 36461/05, §§ 16-19, 71 and 75-78, 15 January 2015; Lyubushkin v. Russia, no. 6277/06, §§ 50-53, 22 October 2015; Shalya v. Russia [Committee], no. 27335/13, §§ 19-23, 13 November 2014; Mergen and Others v. Turkey, nos.
  • EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 12482/14

    LUTSENKO v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 21429/14
    As in the other Maidan-related judgments (Shmorgunov and Others, cited above, §§ 520 and 527; Lutsenko and Verbytskyy v. Ukraine, nos. 12482/14 and 39800/14, §§ 115 and 121, 21 January 2021, not final; Kadura and Smaliy v. Ukraine, nos.
  • EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 42753/14

    KADURA AND SMALIY v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 36897/07

    AKYILDIZ c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 02.02.2017 - 27793/08

    LOPUSHANSKYY v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 10.12.2015 - 17969/09

    TIKHONOV v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 58925/14

    VORONTSOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 12482/14

    LUTSENKO v. UKRAINE

    21429/14 and 9 others, §§ 81 and 83, 21 January 2021, not final; and Vorontsov and Others v. Ukraine, nos.
  • EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 42753/14

    KADURA AND SMALIY v. UKRAINE

    The Government stated that Mr V. Kadura should have challenged the court decision of 11 April 2014 (see paragraph 34 above), had he wished to have a decision terminating the criminal proceedings against him on "exonerating" grounds and to qualify for compensation under the Compensation Act of 1994 or the Civil Code of 2003 (see Shmorgunov and Others, cited above, § 445, and Dubovtsev and Others v. Ukraine, no. 21429/14 and 9 other applications, §§ 23-25 and 48, 21 January 2021, not final).
  • EGMR, 10.07.2025 - 2599/16

    KORNIYETS v. UKRAINE and 2 other applications

    It remains unclear whether the applicant was entitled to institute compensation proceedings under the Compensation Act (see Dubovtsev and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 21429/14 and 9 others, § 48, 21 January 2021) and, if so, whether the question regarding specifically the impugned search could have been raised in such proceedings.
  • EGMR, 16.09.2022 - 62209/17

    VADYM MELNYK v. UKRAINE

    In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the applicant can no longer claim to be the "victim" of a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention, as regards his "re-arrest" on 30 May 2017 (see for a similar solution, Dubovtsev and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 21429/14 and 9 others, §§ 58-65, 21 January 2021).
  • EGMR, 23.05.2024 - 52855/19

    RYTIKOV v. UKRAINE

    Rn. 34 The Court observes that the issue of compensation for unlawful detention is regulated in Ukraine by the Act of 1 December 1994 on the procedure for claiming compensation for damage caused to citizens by the unlawful acts of bodies of inquiry, pre-trial investigation authorities, prosecutor's offices and courts (see Dubovtsev and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 21429/14 and 9 others, § 48, 21 January 2021).
  • EGMR, 06.04.2023 - 25688/12

    KALUGIN v. UKRAINE

    After being notified of the application in the present case, the Government informed the Court that on 14 March 2017 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal had awarded the applicant 150, 000 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH - approximately 5, 000 euros (EUR)) pursuant to the Compensation Act of 1994 (see Dubovtsev and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 21429/14 and 9 others, § 48, 21 January 2021).
  • EGMR - 53492/20 (anhängig)

    VYGOVSKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE and 1 other application

    21429/14 and 9 others, §§ 58-65, 21 January 2021; Vorontsov and Others v. Ukraine, nos.
  • EGMR, 10.10.2024 - 39488/15

    MALYEYEV v. UKRAINE

    As is apparent from the applicant's submissions concerning his just satisfaction claims, after the termination of the criminal investigation he brought civil proceedings against the authorities, claiming compensation for damage in connection with the allegedly unlawful procedural actions taken against him during the investigation pursuant to the Compensation Act of 1994 (see Dubovtsev and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 21429/14 and 9 others, § 48, 21 January 2021).
  • EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 58925/14

    VORONTSOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    21429/14 and 9 others, § 71, 21 January 2021, not final, that the applicants in that case, detained in the framework of criminal proceedings related to the Maidan events, cannot be reproached, in those exceptional circumstances, for not lodging similar compensation claims with civil courts under Article 1176 of the Civil Code of 2003 and/or the Compensation Act of 1994 for the purpose of exhausting domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht