Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KUSHCH v. UKRAINE

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KUSHCH v. UKRAINE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 18 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (17)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 53865/11

  The Court must establish, firstly, whether the costs and expenses indicated by the 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, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 53865/11

  Although it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law, under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention, and the Court can and should review whether that law has been complied with (see, among many other references, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 171, ECHR 2004-II).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 53865/11

  This means that one of the principles of Article 5 § 5 - namely, that the effective enjoyment of the right to compensation guaranteed by it must be ensured with a sufficient degree of certainty (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 182, 17 January 2012, with further references) - does not appear to be met in the present case.

• EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 53865/11

  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 Strasbourg Court (see Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, no. 42310/04, § 233, 21 April 2011).
• EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 65559/01

  NESTAK v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 53865/11

  In 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 Nešťák v. Slovakia, no. 65559/01, § 74, 27 February 2007, Khayredinov v. Ukraine, no. 38717/04, § 27, 14 October 2010 and Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, § 34, 19 January 2012).
• EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 1727/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 53865/11

  The Court must, in addition, be satisfied that the detention, during the period under consideration, 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, 03.12.2015 - 53865/11

  In 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 Nešťák v. Slovakia, no. 65559/01, § 74, 27 February 2007, Khayredinov v. Ukraine, no. 38717/04, § 27, 14 October 2010 and Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, § 34, 19 January 2012).
• EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 9607/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 53865/11

  Moreover, it does not appear from the documents submitted by the parties that there were any compelling reasons for the applicant's continued detention (see and compare with Barilo v. Ukraine, no. 9607/06, § 97, 16 May 2013).
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 38717/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 53865/11

  In 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 Nešťák v. Slovakia, no. 65559/01, § 74, 27 February 2007, Khayredinov v. Ukraine, no. 38717/04, § 27, 14 October 2010 and Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, § 34, 19 January 2012).
• EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 23463/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 53865/11

  The Court accepts that a reasonable suspicion against an applicant of having committed a serious offence, as well as the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, in particular the process of obtaining evidence from witnesses, constitute a valid ground for the applicant's initial detention (see Ślusarczyk v. Poland, no. 23463/04, § 156, 28 October 2014).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 41211/98

  IOVCHEV v. BULGARIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 72277/01

  DVOYNYKH CONTRE L'UKRAINE ET 23 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  53865/11.
• EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 5406/07

  KRIVOLAPOV v. UKRAINE

  The Court has found in similar previous cases that the right to compensation under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention was not ensured in the Ukrainian legal system, should the Court find a violation of any preceding paragraphs of that Article (see, for example, Taran v. Ukraine, no. 31898/06, § 89, 17 October 2013, and Kushch v. Ukraine, no. 53865/11, § 136, 3 December 2015, with further references).
• EGMR, 22.09.2016 - 1574/06

  SAVCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  The Court has also held in other cases that the recurrent practice in Ukraine of having court orders during the trial stage which set no time-limits for the further detention of a defendant, and which uphold rather than extend his or her previous detention, is not compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Kharchenko, cited above, §§ 76 and 98, and Kushch v. Ukraine, no. 53865/11, §§ 118-120, 3 December 2015).

• EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 10042/11

  KORNIYCHUK v. UKRAINE

  Moreover, it does not appear from the documents submitted by the parties that there were any compelling reasons for the applicant's continued detention (see and compare Barilo, cited above, §§ 91-98; Gal v. Ukraine, no. 6759/11, § 32, 16 April 2015; and Kushch v. Ukraine, no. 53865/11, §§ 113-15, 3 December 2015).
• EGMR, 20.10.2016 - 5462/10

  RUSYN v. UKRAINE

  The Court notes that it has frequently found violations of Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention in situations similar to the present case (see, among numerous other cases, Molodorych v. Ukraine, no. 2161/02, § 108, 28 October 2010, Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 70-76, 80-81, 85 and 100, 10 February 2011, Pleshkov v. Ukraine, no. 37789/05, § 42, 10 February 2011, Tretyakov v. Ukraine, no. 16698/05, §§ 51-52 and 59-60, 29 September 2011, Taran v. Ukraine, no. 31898/06, § 81, 17 October 2013, Temchenko v. Ukraine, no. 30579/10, §§ 107-109, 116 and 117, 16 July 2015, and Kushch v. Ukraine, no. 53865/11, §§ 116-126, 3 December 2015).
• EGMR, 10.10.2019 - 19397/10

  KATAN v. UKRAINE

  It does not appear from the documents submitted by the parties that there were any compelling reasons for the applicant's continued detention (see and compare Barilo, cited above, §§ 91-98; Gal v. Ukraine, no. 6759/11, § 32, 16 April 2015; and Kushch v. Ukraine, no. 53865/11, §§ 113-15, 3 December 2015).