Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GAL v. UKRAINE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 6759/11
• EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 6759/11
• EGMR - 6759/11 (anhängig)

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GAL v. UKRAINE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  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 5-3 - Brought promptly before judge or other officer) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 6759/11
• EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 6759/11
• EGMR - 6759/11 (anhängig)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.06.2003 - 44672/98

  Verletzung von Art. 5 Abs. 4 der Konvention durch fehlende Rechtmäßigkeitsprüfung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 6759/11

  The Court considers that there are no special circumstances leading to a conclusion that this period was already too long or that the review of the applicant's detention did not comply with the requirement of "speediness" (see and compare Herz v. Germany, no. 44672/98, § 73, 12 June 2003; Klishyn v. Ukraine, no. 30671/04, § 84, 23 February 2012; and Shannon v. Latvia, no. 32214/03, § 74, 24 November 2009, in which the periods of eleven, thirteen and fourteen days respectively were found to be in compliance with the requirement of "speediness").
• EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 30671/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 6759/11

  The Court considers that there are no special circumstances leading to a conclusion that this period was already too long or that the review of the applicant's detention did not comply with the requirement of "speediness" (see and compare Herz v. Germany, no. 44672/98, § 73, 12 June 2003; Klishyn v. Ukraine, no. 30671/04, § 84, 23 February 2012; and Shannon v. Latvia, no. 32214/03, § 74, 24 November 2009, in which the periods of eleven, thirteen and fourteen days respectively were found to be in compliance with the requirement of "speediness").
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 6759/11

  While promptness has to be assessed in each case according to its specific features (see, among other authorities, Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 48, ECHR 1999-III), the strict time constraint imposed by this requirement of Article 5 § 3 leaves little flexibility in interpretation, otherwise there would be a serious weakening of a procedural guarantee, to the detriment of the individual and risking impairing the very essence of the right protected by this provision (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 33, ECHR 2006-X).

• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

  Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 6759/11

  While promptness has to be assessed in each case according to its specific features (see, among other authorities, Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 48, ECHR 1999-III), the strict time constraint imposed by this requirement of Article 5 § 3 leaves little flexibility in interpretation, otherwise there would be a serious weakening of a procedural guarantee, to the detriment of the individual and risking impairing the very essence of the right protected by this provision (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 33, ECHR 2006-X).
• EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 65559/01

  NESTAK v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 6759/11

  As a consequence, a deprivation of liberty which is lawful under domestic law can still be arbitrary and thus contrary to the Convention, in particular where there has been an element of bad faith or deception on the part of the authorities (see Mooren, cited above, §§ 72, 77 and 78, with further references) or where such deprivation of liberty was not necessary in the circumstances (see Nesták v. Slovakia, no. 65559/01, § 74, 27 February 2007).
• EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 6759/11

  The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention must be read in conjunction with Article 5 § 3, which forms a whole with it, and that the complaint at issue may be considered under both provisions simultaneously (see, mutatis mutandis, Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, § 38, 19 January 2012.
• EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 9607/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 6759/11

  At the same time, the Court noted that the reasons not to release the person should be compelling (see Barilo v. Ukraine, no. 9607/06, § 93, 16 May 2013).
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 38717/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 6759/11

  All persons are entitled to the protection of that right, that is to say not to be deprived, or to continue to be deprived, of their liberty, save in accordance with the conditions specified in Article 5 § 1. The list of exceptions set out in the aforementioned provision is an exhaustive one, and only a narrow interpretation of those exceptions is consistent with the aim of that provision, namely to ensure that no one is arbitrarily deprived of his or her liberty (see Khayredinov v. Ukraine, no. 38717/04, § 26, 14 October 2010, with further references).
• EGMR, 21.09.2017 - 40107/02

  KHARCHENKO CONTRE L'UKRAINE ET 35 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 6759/11

  The Court has previously found court orders made during a trial which fix no time-limits for further detention to be one of the recurrent problems in the case-law against Ukraine (see Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, § 98, 10 February 2011).
• EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 24396/94

  TAS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 6759/11

  In this connection, they referred to the case of Tas v. Turkey (no. 24396/94, § 86, 14 November 2000), in which the Court stated that only exceptionally could periods of more than four days before release or appearance before the judiciary be justified under Article 5 § 3. The Government submitted that the applicant had been brought before the judge within less than four days, and therefore it had been compatible with the requirements of the Convention.
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 38779/04

  FELDMAN v. UKRAINE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 29994/02

  [ENG]

  The Court notes in this connection that while it has required that the initial review by a judge take place within a "maximum" of four days after arrest (see McKay, cited above, § 33, and Magee and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 26289/12, 29062/12 and 29891/12, §§ 77-78, ECHR 2015 (extracts)), this case-law must not be understood as requiring no justification where the relevant period is less than four days (see Gal v. Ukraine, no. 6759/11, § 28, 16 April 2015).
• EGMR, 22.09.2016 - 1574/06

  SAVCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  The Court reiterates in this connection that when the maximum period of detention is absolute, laid down by the law, and thus known in advance, the authorities responsible for the detention are under a duty to take all necessary precautions to ensure that the permitted duration is not exceeded (see K.-F. v. Germany, 27 November 1997, § 72, Reports 1997-VII, and, for a more recent reference, Gal v. Ukraine, no. 6759/11, § 26, 16 April 2015).
• EGMR, 02.02.2017 - 27793/08

  LOPUSHANSKYY v. UKRAINE

  In the case of Gal v. Ukraine (no. 6759/11, 16 April 2015) the applicant was awarded EUR 4, 500 in respect of his unlawful detention for a total of ninety-nine days.