Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RYTIKOV v. UKRAINE

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-5 - Compensation);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 ...

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Zitiert selbst (16)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2024 - 52855/19

  The right to compensation set forth in paragraph 5 therefore presupposes that a violation of one of the other paragraphs has been established, either by a domestic authority or by the Convention institutions (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 182, ECHR 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 34529/10

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2024 - 52855/19

  Rn. 44 Even though the applicant did not consider the defamation proceedings an effective domestic remedy in respect of his complaint under Article 6 § 2 (see paragraph 38 above), the Court, having regard to its case-law (for instance, Marchiani v. France (dec.), no. 30392/03, 27 May 2008; Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria, no. 34529/10, §§ 176-78, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Januškevičienė v. Lithuania, no. 69717/14, §§ 58-59, 3 September 2019; Mamaladze v. Georgia, no. 9487/19, § 65, 3 November 2022; Okropiridze v. Georgia, nos.
• EGMR, 05.03.2015 - 28718/09

  KOTIY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2024 - 52855/19

  Rn. 28 In a number of its judgments in similar cases relating to the period when the CCP adopted in 1960 (with subsequent amendments) was applicable in Ukraine, the Court found, with reference to Article 106 of that Code[1], that when the arrest report failed to include the specific information indicating that the arrest was carried out in an urgent situation, it did not constitute a meaningful guarantee against arbitrary deprivation of liberty (see Grinenko v. Ukraine, no. 33627/06, § 83, 15 November 2012; Malyk v. Ukraine, no. 37198/10, §§ 27-29, 29 January 2015; and Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 45, 5 March 2015).

• EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 39496/11

  SINKOVA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2024 - 52855/19

  Furthermore, there is no legally envisaged procedure in Ukraine for bringing proceedings to seek compensation for the deprivation of liberty found to be in breach of one of the other paragraphs by the Court (see Sinkova v. Ukraine, no. 39496/11, § 82, 27 February 2018).
• EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 30198/11

  STROGAN v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2024 - 52855/19

  Furthermore, specific grounds justifying the application of one of the exceptions that it listed exhaustively had to be established unequivocally at the time of the taking of such a measure (see Strogan v. Ukraine, no. 30198/11, § 87, 6 October 2016).
• EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 1727/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2024 - 52855/19

  The Court must, in addition, be satisfied that it was compatible with the purpose of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which is to prevent persons from being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary manner (see Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v. Ukraine, no. 1727/04, § 84, 24 June 2010).
• EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2024 - 52855/19

  Furthermore, in order for a deprivation of liberty to be considered free from arbitrariness, it does not suffice that this measure is executed in conformity with the letter of national law; it must also be necessary in the circumstances (see Khayredinov v. Ukraine, no. 38717/04, § 27, 14 October 2010, and Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, § 34, 19 January 2012).
• EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 37198/10

  MALYK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2024 - 52855/19

  Rn. 28 In a number of its judgments in similar cases relating to the period when the CCP adopted in 1960 (with subsequent amendments) was applicable in Ukraine, the Court found, with reference to Article 106 of that Code[1], that when the arrest report failed to include the specific information indicating that the arrest was carried out in an urgent situation, it did not constitute a meaningful guarantee against arbitrary deprivation of liberty (see Grinenko v. Ukraine, no. 33627/06, § 83, 15 November 2012; Malyk v. Ukraine, no. 37198/10, §§ 27-29, 29 January 2015; and Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 45, 5 March 2015).
• EGMR, 15.11.2012 - 33627/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2024 - 52855/19

  Rn. 28 In a number of its judgments in similar cases relating to the period when the CCP adopted in 1960 (with subsequent amendments) was applicable in Ukraine, the Court found, with reference to Article 106 of that Code[1], that when the arrest report failed to include the specific information indicating that the arrest was carried out in an urgent situation, it did not constitute a meaningful guarantee against arbitrary deprivation of liberty (see Grinenko v. Ukraine, no. 33627/06, § 83, 15 November 2012; Malyk v. Ukraine, no. 37198/10, §§ 27-29, 29 January 2015; and Kotiy v. Ukraine, no. 28718/09, § 45, 5 March 2015).
• EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 69717/14

  JANUSKEVICIENÄ- v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2024 - 52855/19

  Rn. 44 Even though the applicant did not consider the defamation proceedings an effective domestic remedy in respect of his complaint under Article 6 § 2 (see paragraph 38 above), the Court, having regard to its case-law (for instance, Marchiani v. France (dec.), no. 30392/03, 27 May 2008; Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria, no. 34529/10, §§ 176-78, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Januškevičienė v. Lithuania, no. 69717/14, §§ 58-59, 3 September 2019; Mamaladze v. Georgia, no. 9487/19, § 65, 3 November 2022; Okropiridze v. Georgia, nos.
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 38717/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 9487/19

  MAMALADZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 43627/16

  OKROPIRIDZE v. GEORGIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 10.10.2023 - 31634/18

  RIMSÄ'VICS v. LATVIA and 1 other application
• EGMR - 50933/18 (anhängig)

  MELNYK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 21429/14

  DUBOVTSEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.07.2026 - 22126/15

  BASTOVOI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Moreover, the Court has found on numerous occasions that a civil-law remedy could be an effective way of addressing a complaint about allegedly prejudicial statements made in respect of ongoing criminal proceedings, either alone or in combination with raising the issue within the criminal proceedings against the applicant in that case (see Rytikov v. Ukraine, no. 52855/19, §§ 42-46, 23 May 2024; Kezerashvili v. Georgia, no. 11027/22, §§ 67-68, 5 December 2024; and Narbutas v. Lithuania, no. 14139/21, §§ 210-17, 19 December 2023).
• EGMR, 10.10.2024 - 41028/20

  ALPERIN v. UKRAINE

  It further held in Rytikov v. Ukraine (no. 52855/19, § 44, 23 May 2024) that in Ukraine a civil-law remedy could, in principle, be an effective way of addressing a complaint relating to allegedly prejudicial statements made in respect of ongoing criminal proceedings, either alone or in combination with a criminal-law remedy.
• EGMR, 05.03.2026 - 50474/20

  KRYUK v. UKRAINE and 1 other application

  The Court observes that there is no indication that the national law conferred on the applicants a right to compensation in their situation (see Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, § 80, 19 January 2012, Strogan v. Ukraine, no. 30198/11, §§ 107-10, 6 October 2016, and Rytikov v. Ukraine, no. 52855/19, §§ 32-37, 23 May 2024, and further references therein).

• EGMR - 45483/20 (anhängig)

  GERASYMCHUK v. UKRAINE

  Did the applicant comply with the six-months' time limit for lodging his complaint regarding the unlawful arrest on 25 September 2019, as required by Article 35 of the Convention? If so, was the applicant's detention, based on the arrest report, in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Rytikov v. Ukraine, no. 52855/19, §§ 24-29, 23 May2024)?.
• EGMR - 42857/20 (anhängig)

  PEDURYANU v. UKRAINE and 4 other applications

  Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (see, in particular, Rytikov v. Ukraine, no. 52855/19, 23 May 2024)?.
• EGMR, 13.01.2026 - 54353/20

  VOVK v. UKRAINE

  As regards the effectiveness of the civil-law remedy to which the Government referred, the Court observes that in Rytikov v. Ukraine (no. 52855/19, §§ 42-46, 23 May 2024) it held that a civil-law remedy could be an effective way of addressing a complaint about allegedly prejudicial statements made in respect of ongoing criminal proceedings, either alone or in combination with raising the issue within the criminal proceedings against the applicant in that case.
• EGMR, 11.09.2025 - 14335/18

  GORDYEYEV v. UKRAINE

  Rn. 23 As regards the complaint under Article 6 § 2, the Court takes note of the Government's argument that the applicant, while alive, failed to use the criminal-law or civil-law remedies available to him, in order to comply with the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies (see Rytikov v. Ukraine, no. 52855/19, §§ 42 and 44, 23 May 2024).
• EGMR - 26634/20 (anhängig)

  PASHYNSKYY v. UKRAINE

  Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for the alleged violations of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (see, for example, Rytikov v. Ukraine, no. 52855/19, §§ 32-37, 23 May 2024)?.
• EGMR - 23002/20 (anhängig)

  KIYAN v. UKRAINE and 1 other application

  In respect of their complaints regarding the allegedly unlawful arrest on 12 December 2019, have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Vadym Melnyk v. Ukraine, nos. 62209/17 and 50933/18, §§ 60 and 125, 16 September 2022)? If so, was the applicants' detention, based on the relevant arrest reports, in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Rytikov v. Ukraine, no. 52855/19, §§ 24-29, 23 May 2024)?.
• EGMR - 19922/19 (anhängig)

  KOT v. UKRAINE and 6 other applications

  Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (see, in particular, Rytikov v. Ukraine, no. 52855/19, §§ 32-37, 23 May 2024)?.
• EGMR, 16.04.2026 - 15485/25

  GRINKOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 07.11.2024 - 34967/17

  DOVGYY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 10.10.2024 - 39488/15

  MALYEYEV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 52450/19 (anhängig)

  OVSEPYAN v. UKRAINE