Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  POPOVYCH v. UKRAINE

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  POPOVYCH v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 9808/02

  STOICHKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 44704/11

  The existence of the remedy required by Article 5 § 4 must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis, Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 66 in fine, 24 March 2005, and Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 71, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 30422/03

  PSHENICHNYY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 44704/11

  The Court notes that the applicant submitted a half-page list of legal services provided to him by his representative both domestically and before the Court, but failed to provide any documents proving that he had paid his lawyer for the services rendered or that he was under a legal obligation to do so (see, mutatis mutandis, Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 38, 14 February 2008).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 44704/11

  The Court notes that the six-month rule is a mandatory one and that, consequently, it has jurisdiction to examine compliance with it of its own motion (Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 160, ECHR 2004-II).

• EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 4634/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 44704/11

  The Court recalls its practice of rejecting as time barred complaints about judicial examinations concerning an applicant's detention, if such complaints were submitted more than six months after the respective examinations took place (see Hristov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 35436/97, 19 September 2000; Mello v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 67030/01, 21 June 2005; Osypenko v. Ukraine, no. 4634/04, § 87, 9 November 2010).
• EGMR, 21.09.2017 - 40107/02

  KHARCHENKO CONTRE L'UKRAINE ET 35 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 44704/11

  On the other hand, in the case of Molodorych v. Ukraine (no. 2161/02, §§ 104-106, 28 October 2010), the Court made the following findings concerning the substance of complaints under Article 5 § 4 with respect to the same legal framework as in the case at hand:.
• EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 17650/02

  GAVAZHUK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 44704/11

  In this regard the applicant relied on the judgments of Nikolay Kucherenko v. Ukraine (no. 16447/04, § 29, 19 February 2009) and Gavazhuk v. Ukraine (no. 17650/02, §§ 54 and 55, 18 February 2010).
• EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16447/04

  NIKOLAY KUCHERENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 44704/11

  In this regard the applicant relied on the judgments of Nikolay Kucherenko v. Ukraine (no. 16447/04, § 29, 19 February 2009) and Gavazhuk v. Ukraine (no. 17650/02, §§ 54 and 55, 18 February 2010).
• EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 35825/97

  AL AKIDI AND 5 OTHER CASES AGAINST BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 44704/11

  The Court recalls its practice of rejecting as time barred complaints about judicial examinations concerning an applicant's detention, if such complaints were submitted more than six months after the respective examinations took place (see Hristov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 35436/97, 19 September 2000; Mello v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 67030/01, 21 June 2005; Osypenko v. Ukraine, no. 4634/04, § 87, 9 November 2010).
• EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 35231/02

  SVERSHOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 44704/11

  In cases against Ukraine, the Court found, for instance, excessive delays in the examination of requests for release (see, among other authorities, Kharchenko, cited above, § 86), failure to address pertinent arguments of the applicants (see, among other authorities, Svershov v. Ukraine, no. 35231/02, § 71, 27 November 2008) and refusals of considering the applicant's further requests for release altogether (see Yeloyev v. Ukraine, no. 17283/02, § 65, 6 November 2008).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.06.2025 - 23963/21

  KRPELÍK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Moreover, there is no doubt that he must have spent some hours preparing the observations which were submitted to the Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Popovych v. Ukraine, no. 44704/11, § 62, 22 April 2021; and Strazimiri v. Albania, no. 34602/16, § 157, 21 January 2020), and the amount claimed by him in this respect is rather low.
• EGMR, 19.10.2023 - 47954/16

  USHAKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  (see Popovych v. Ukraine, no. 44704/11, §§ 30-34, 22 April 2021).
• EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 56425/18

  RIMSÄ'VICS v. LATVIA

  The Court has further stated that, in general, in continuing situations the six-month period runs from the cessation of the situation complained of (see, among many other authorities, Popovych v. Ukraine, no. 44704/11, § 26, 22 April 2021).

• EGMR, 28.03.2024 - 8908/22

  KOSTYUCHENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  40107/02, §§ 86-87, 10 February 2011, Popovych v. Ukraine, no. 44704/11, §§ 41-42, 22 April 2021);.
• EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 5765/20

  OLEKSEYCHUK v. UKRAINE

  His detention shall therefore be regarded as a continuing situation (see Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, § 116, ECHR 2006-III (extracts); and Popovych v. Ukraine, no. 44704/11, § 33, 22 April 2021).
• EGMR, 16.05.2024 - 33279/16

  MEFEDOV v. UKRAINE

  Rn. 11 Having examined the Government's objection that the applicant's complaint concerning the arbitrariness of his detention on the basis of the court decision of 26 March 2015 was lodged out of time, the Court notes that in the light of its findings in the case of Popovych v. Ukraine (no. 44704/11, §§ 28-33, 22 April 2021), the applicant's detention shall be regarded as a continuing situation.
• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 56126/17

  YEDIGARYAN v. ARMENIA

  The applicant lodged his complaint within six months after the date of his conviction (for similar reasoning, see Popovych v. Ukraine, no. 44704/11, §§ 30-34, 22 April 2021).