Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZGONNIK v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 13, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 38717/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 5976/08

  In its judgment on the case of Khayredinov v. Ukraine (no. 38717/04, 14 October 2010) the amount of the compensation awarded by the Court in respect of the non-pecuniary damage related to the violations of the applicant's rights under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention was EUR 5, 000.
• EGMR, 16.09.2010 - 26127/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 5976/08

  The Court found violations of the same provisions of the Convention in the case of Vitruk v. Ukraine (no. 26127/03, 16 September 2010), in which the applicant had been unlawfully detained for four years and almost eight months.
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03

  SHILBERGS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 5976/08

  The Court reiterates in this connection that the question whether the applicant received reparation for the damage caused - comparable to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention - is an important issue (see, among other authorities, Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, § 72, 17 December 2009).

• EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 67299/01

  DUBJAKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 5976/08

  It is noteworthy though that the compensation which is lower than the amount the Court would itself award may still be considered reasonable, provided that the relevant decision of the domestic courts is consonant with the legal tradition and standard of living in the country concerned and is speedy, reasoned and executed quickly (see Scordino, cited above, §§ 189 and 206, and Dubjakova v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 67299/01, 19 October 2004).
• EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 5976/08

  The Court notes that in the case of Korneykova v. Ukraine (no. 39884/05, 19 January 2012) it awarded EUR 6, 000 in respect of the violations of the applicant's rights under Article 5 §§ 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 29.09.2011 - 16698/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 5976/08

  In the case of Tretyakov v. Ukraine (no. 16698/05, 29 September 2011) the applicant was awarded EUR 8, 000 in respect of his pre-trial detention for four years and nearly two months in breach of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 38722/02

  AFANASYEV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 5976/08

  The relevant provisions of the Law "On the Procedure for the Compensation of Damage caused to Citizens by the Unlawful Actions of Bodies in charge of Operational Enquiries, Pre-trial Investigation Authorities, Prosecutors or Courts" can be found in judgment on the case of Afanasyev v. Ukraine, no. 38722/02, § 52, 5 April 2005.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

  MIKHNO v. UKRAINE

  The question whether the applicant received reparation for the damage caused - a matter comparable to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention - is important in that sense (see, for instance, Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119/04, § 31, 20 February 2014; Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, § 93, 17 January 2013; and Zgonnik v. Ukraine, no. 5976/08 (dec.), 18 December 2012).
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 1227/06

  TETYANA GAVRYLOVA AND DENYS GAVRYLOV v. UKRAINEand 4 other applications

  Even compensation which is lower than the amount the Court would itself award could be considered reasonable, provided that the relevant decision of the domestic courts was consistent with the legal tradition and standard of living in the country concerned and was speedy, reasoned and executed quickly (see Scordino, cited above, §§ 189 and 206; Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, §§ 93-94, 17 January 2013; and Zgonnik v. Ukraine, no. 5976/08 (dec.), 18 December 2012).
• EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 36314/06

  SVITLANA ATAMANYUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  The question whether the applicant received reparation for the damage caused - a matter comparable to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention - is important in that sense (see, for instance, Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119/04, § 31, 20 February 2014; Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, § 93, 17 January 2013; and Zgonnik v. Ukraine, no. 5976/08 (dec.), 18 December 2012).
• EGMR, 19.10.2017 - 60873/09

  VANCHEV v. BULGARIA

  The Court has found in earlier cases that compensation awarded at the domestic level may still be considered adequate, even if it is lower than what the Court would have awarded, provided that the relevant decisions, which must be consonant with the legal tradition and the standard of living in the country concerned, were speedy, reasoned and executed very quickly (see, for example, Dubjakova v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 67299/01, 19 October 2004, and Zgonnik v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 5976/08, 18 December 2012).
• EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 32454/06

  MINDROVA v. UKRAINE

  Even compensation which is lower than the amount the Court would itself award may nevertheless be considered reasonable, provided that the relevant decision of the domestic courts is consistent with the legal tradition and standard of living in the country concerned and is speedy, reasoned and executed quickly (see Scordino, cited above, §§ 189 and 206; Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, §§ 93-94, 17 January 2013; and Zgonnik v. Ukraine, no. 5976/08 (dec.), 18 December 2012).