Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VADYM MELNYK v. UKRAINE

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;(Art. 35-4) Rejection of application at any stage of the proceedings;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 62209/17
• EGMR, 16.09.2022 - 62209/17, 50933/18

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (16)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR - 50933/18 (anhängig)

  MELNYK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2022 - 62209/17

  (Applications nos. 62209/17 and 50933/18).

  the applications (nos. 62209/17 and 50933/18) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Ukrainian national, Mr Vadym Anatoliyovych Melnyk ("the applicant"), on 15 August 2017 and 18 October 2018;.

  However, when commenting on the Government's observations on the admissibility and merits of application no. 50933/18, the applicant mentioned, without providing any further detail, that the compensation proceedings had in fact been instituted and that the Court of Appeal had awarded him 5, 000 Ukrainian hryvnias (see paragraph 31 above).

• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 61603/00

  Konventionskonforme Auslegung des deutschen (Zivil-)Rechts …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2022 - 62209/17

  In any event, to the extent that it can be considered that the applicant was in a situation where his right to liberty was threatened by the public present in the courtroom and the above-mentioned circumstances could be seen as giving rise to a positive obligation on the State to protect his liberty (see, for example, Storck v. Germany, no. 61603/00, §§ 101-02, ECHR 2005-V), the Court considers that in the present case there is no indication of any failure to discharge that obligation.
• EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 39692/09

  AUSTIN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2022 - 62209/17

  In the Court's view, to the extent that it can be considered that the police officers present in the courtroom prevented the applicant from leaving immediately, the particular situation must be seen as a restriction on the applicant's freedom of movement rather than a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention (see Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom GC, no. 39692/09 et al., §§ 52-69, 15 March 2012, where the background situation was different but which also involved restrictions temporarily made necessary by the behaviour of third parties).

• EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 69981/14

  RASUL JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2022 - 62209/17

  General principles regarding the right to an effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of detention under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention have been summarised in Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 69981/14, §§ 140- 42, 17 March 2016.
• EGMR, 04.07.2019 - 26744/16

  KORBAN v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2022 - 62209/17

  The Court has already found violations of Article 3 in a number of similar cases and has held that the holding of defendants in metal cages during a court hearing was a standard procedure in Ukraine, which did not include an assessment of the existence of any actual and specific security risks in the courtroom requiring that the defendant be held in a metal cage during the hearings (see Korban v. Ukraine, no. 26744/16, § 132, 4 July 2019).
• EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 26824/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2022 - 62209/17

  Bearing in mind that the aggressive behaviour of private persons who were present in the courtroom occurred immediately after the pronouncement of the Court of Appeal's decision concerning the applicant's release, it is difficult for the Court to see any other practical solution available to the authorities which could have effectively stopped the incident at once, while ensuring the applicant's liberty and physical safety in accordance with their Convention duty to protect the life of arrested and detained persons (see, mutatis mutandis, Keller v. Russia, no. 26824/04, § 88, 17 October 2013).
• EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 14370/03

  MOSKOVETS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2022 - 62209/17

  A decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him or her of his or her status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, for instance, Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 128, ECHR 2012; see also, concerning Article 5 of the Convention, Moskovets v. Russia, no. 14370/03, § 50, 23 April 2009).
• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 21429/14

  DUBOVTSEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2022 - 62209/17

  In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the applicant can no longer claim to be the "victim" of a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention, as regards his "re-arrest" on 30 May 2017 (see for a similar solution, Dubovtsev and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 21429/14 and 9 others, §§ 58-65, 21 January 2021).
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2022 - 62209/17

  The Court reiterates that, in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his or her human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him or her to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his or her health and well-being are adequately secured (see, for instance, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 95, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR - 43441/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2022 - 62209/17

  Seeing that the alleged violation cannot be seen as a continuing situation for the purposes of Article 35 of the Convention (compare Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, § 86, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), it further finds that the applicant has not complied with the six-month rule under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, as in force at the relevant time, in relation to his complaint, introduced on 18 October 2018, concerning confinement in a metal cage on 30 May 2017.
• EGMR, 15.12.2016 - 40583/15

  IGNATOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 19.04.2005 - 75788/01

  PIRYANIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 43707/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 30983/02

  GRISHIN v. RUSSIA
• SG Berlin, 14.09.1955 - 15/12
• EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 29070/15

  PIVOVARNIK v. UKRAINE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen