Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NECHIPORUK AND YONKALO v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. ... 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violations of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-2 Violations of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-5 Violations of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 6-3-c Remainder inadmissible ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Neu Zitiert selbst (19)

• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

  Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04

  While promptness has to be assessed in each case according to its special features (see, among other authorities, Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 48, ECHR 1999-III), the strict time constraint imposed by this requirement of Article 5 § 3 leaves little flexibility in interpretation, otherwise there would be a serious weakening of a procedural guarantee to the detriment of the individual and the risk of impairing the very essence of the right protected by this provision (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 33, ECHR 2006-X).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04

  Continued detention may be justified in a given case only if there are clear indications of a genuine public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the right to liberty (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 93, ECHR 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96

  JABLONSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04

  However, after a certain lapse of time it does not in itself justify deprivation of liberty and the judicial authorities should give other grounds for continued detention (see Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 80, 21 December 2000).

 
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 29731/96

  Dieter Krombach

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04

  The Court emphasises 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, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04

  Those grounds, moreover, should be expressly mentioned by the domestic courts, and the arguments brought for and against release must not be "general and abstract" (see Ilowiecki v. Poland, no. 27504/95, § 61, 4 October 2001, and Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04

  The quality of the evidence is also taken into account, including whether the circumstances in which it was obtained cast doubts on its reliability or accuracy (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-IX).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04

  While promptness has to be assessed in each case according to its special features (see, among other authorities, Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 48, ECHR 1999-III), the strict time constraint imposed by this requirement of Article 5 § 3 leaves little flexibility in interpretation, otherwise there would be a serious weakening of a procedural guarantee to the detriment of the individual and the risk of impairing the very essence of the right protected by this provision (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 33, ECHR 2006-X).
• EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 36391/02

  Wirksamkeitsverpflichtete Konventionsauslegung; Recht auf konkreten und wirksamen …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04

  As a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 55, 27 November 2008).
• EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 37083/03

  TEBIETI MÜHAFIZE CEMIYYETI AND ISRAFILOV c. AZERBAIDJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04

  Accordingly, the Court considers those fees to have been "actually incurred" (see Tebieti Mühafize Cemiyyeti and Israfilov v. Azerbaijan, no 37083/03, § 106, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04

  The Court must establish, firstly, whether the costs and expenses indicated by the first applicant were actually incurred and, secondly, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A no. 324).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91

  KAMPANIS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11152/84

  CIULLA v. ITALY
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16505/02

  DORONIN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

• EGMR, 09.01.2013 - 21722/11

  OLEKSANDR VOLKOV c. UKRAINE

  Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, no. 42310/04, § 297, 21 April 2011.
• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 4854/10

  HAJIZADE AND ABDULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court has previously held, in examining the fairness of criminal proceedings, that by ignoring a specific, pertinent and important point made by the accused, domestic courts fall short of their obligations under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, no. 42310/04, § 280, 21 April 2011, and Karimov and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 24219/16 and 2 others, § 30, 22 July 2021).
• EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 32734/11

  FATULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

  An issue with regard to a lack of reasoning of judicial decisions under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention will normally arise when the domestic courts ignored a specific, pertinent and important point raised by the applicant (see Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, no. 42310/04, § 280, 21 April 2011; Rostomashvili v. Georgia, no. 13185/07, § 59, 8 November 2018; and Zhang v. Ukraine, no. 6970/15, § 73, 13 November 2018).

 
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 4722/09

  TURBYLEV v. RUSSIA

  Early access to a lawyer at the investigation stage of the proceedings serves as a procedural guarantee of the privilege against self-incrimination and a fundamental safeguard against ill-treatment, given the particular vulnerability of the accused at that stage of the proceedings (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 54, ECHR 2008; Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, no. 42310/04, § 263, 21 April 2011; and Martin v. Estonia, no. 35985/09, § 79, 30 May 2013).
• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 41452/07

  LENEV v. BULGARIA

  25060/02 and 1705/03, § 73, 2 December 2008; Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, no. 42310/04, § 157 in fine, 21 April 2011; Savin v. Ukraine, no. 34725/08, § 62, 16 February 2012; and Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, §§ 123-24, 15 May 2012).
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 13128/06

  URAZBAYEV c. RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà eu l'occasion de critiquer des situations similaires dans lesquelles une personne avait été arrêtée sous le prétexte qu'elle avait commis une contravention administrative afin de pouvoir la tenir à la disposition de la police et de l'interroger informellement en l'absence de toutes les garanties, et en particulier en l'absence d'un avocat, au sujet d'une infraction pénale (Menecheva c. Russie, no 59261/00, §§ 85-86, CEDH 2006-III, Doronine c. Ukraine, no 16505/02, § 56, 19 février 2009, Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin c. Ukraine, no 1727/04, § 88, 24 juin 2010, Nechiporuk et Yonkalo c. Ukraine, no 42310/04, § 178, 21 avril 2011, et, dernièrement, Semenenko c. Ukraine [comité], no 52819/08, §§ 29-36, 20 octobre 2016).
• EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 52673/07

  GRIGORYEV c. RUSSIE

  Par ailleurs, la Cour rappelle avoir déjà considéré à plusieurs reprises que l'usage de la procédure administrative aux fins de l'interrogation d'une personne soupçonnée d'une infraction pénale était arbitraire au sens de l'article 5 de la Convention (Menecheva, précité, §§ 85-86, Doronine c. Ukraine, no 16505/02, § 56, 19 février 2009, Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin c. Ukraine, no 1727/04, § 88, 24 juin 2010, Nechiporuk et Yonkalo c. Ukraine, no 42310/04, § 178, 21 avril 2011, et, dernièrement, Semenenko c. Ukraine (comité), no 52819/08, §§ 29-36, 20 octobre 2016).
• EGMR, 04.07.2019 - 26744/16

  KORBAN v. UKRAINE

  The accessibility of a remedy implies, inter alia, that the circumstances voluntarily created by the authorities must be such as to afford applicants a realistic possibility of using the remedy (see Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, no. 42310/04, § 239, 21 April 2011).
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 37537/13

  BORG v. MALTA

  The applicant further referred to Yesilkaya v. Turkey (no. 59780/00, 8 December 2009), Boz v. Turkey (no. 2039/04, 9 February 2010), Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine (no. 42310/04, 21 April 2011) and Huseyn and Others v. Azerbaijan (nos. 35485/05, 45553/05, 35680/05 and 36085/05, 26 July 2011), all of which confirmed the approach taken in Salduz (cited above).
• EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 4494/07

  BELOUSOV v. UKRAINE

  While promptness has to be assessed in each case according to its special features (see, among other authorities, Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 48, ECHR 1999-III), the strict time constraint imposed by this requirement of Article 5 § 3 leaves little flexibility in interpretation, otherwise there would be a serious weakening of a procedural guarantee, to the detriment of the individual and at risk of impairing the very essence of the right protected by this provision (see, for example, McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 33, ECHR 2006-X, and Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, no. 42310/04, § 214, 21 April 2011).
• EGMR, 30.06.2022 - 52286/11

  AHMADLI v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 28.04.2022 - 59202/12

  HASANOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 30760/06

  KULYK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 46807/21 (anhängig)

  MANGOLD v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 24219/16

  KARIMOV ET AUTRES c. AZERBAÏDJAN
• EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 4436/07

  MALA v. UKRAINE