Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LYSYUK v. UKRAINE

  Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 8 - Right to ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  LYSYUK v. UKRAINE

  Art. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. 1, Art. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 1Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Zitiert selbst (14)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.07.2021 - 43571/12

  BERLIZEV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 72531/13

  Other relevant provisions of the Code can be found in Berlizev v. Ukraine (no. 43571/12, §§ 21-26, 8 July 2021, not yet final).

  In the present case the applicant complained of the unlawfulness of the surveillance measures whose alleged illegality was an issue before the courts dealing with his criminal case; those courts, including the courts of appeal and cassation, had the power to examine the issue and adopt, separately from their decisions on the merits of the criminal case, a ruling pointing to any illegality in respect of those surveillance measures (see paragraph 29 above and Berlizev v. Ukraine, no. 43571/12, § 33, 8 July 2021).

  Noticeably, the majority referred to another recent judgment of the Court (Berlizev v. Ukraine, no. 43571/12, 8 July 2021), in which a relevant complaint was declared manifestly ill-founded in the opposite circumstances: contrary to the applicant in the present case, Mr Berlizev had failed to raise his exclusionary plea before the trial court at first and second instance.

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 72531/13

  The relevant principles of the Court's case-law can be found in Pélissier and Sassi v. France ([GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68955/11

  DRAGOJEVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 72531/13

  Indeed, the applicant never raised any arguments to that effect either before the Court or before the domestic courts (see Berlizev, cted above, § 54 (not yet final), and Dragojević v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, § 131, 15 January 2015; and contrast Bykov, cited above, § 94, and Niţulescu v. Romania, no. 16184/06, §§ 53-55, 22 September 2015).

• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 8088/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 72531/13

  There is no indication that the applicant at any point changed his position during the retrial or asked for those witnesses to be re-examined by the Court of Appeal (see Palchik v. Ukraine, no. 16980/06, § 36, 2 March 2017, and contrast Gabrielyan v. Armenia, no. 8088/05, § 85, 10 April 2012).
• EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08

  TORTLADZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 72531/13

  However, as stated above, that fact was sufficiently established by other evidence (compare Tortladze v. Georgia, no. 42371/08, §§ 73-75, 18 March 2021).
• EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 16980/06

  PALCHIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 72531/13

  There is no indication that the applicant at any point changed his position during the retrial or asked for those witnesses to be re-examined by the Court of Appeal (see Palchik v. Ukraine, no. 16980/06, § 36, 2 March 2017, and contrast Gabrielyan v. Armenia, no. 8088/05, § 85, 10 April 2012).
• EGMR, 14.03.2019 - 36416/06

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 72531/13

  However, the Court's post-Bykov jurisprudence demonstrates that only under the second criterion, that is, if the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained cast doubt on its reliability, will the Court in some exceptional cases come to the conclusion that evidence obtained in violation of Article 8 led to a violation of Article 6 § 1 (see Lisica v. Croatia, no. 20100/06, 25 February 2010, and Kobiashvili v. Georgia, no. 36416/06, 14 March 2019).
• EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 6739/11

  BOKHONKO v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 72531/13

  [2] Concurring opinion of Judge Yudkivska in the case of Bokhonko v. Georgia, no. 6739/11, 22 October 2020.
• EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 38059/13

  SVETINA v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 72531/13

  In Svetina v. Slovenia (no. 38059/13, 22 May 2018), no violation of the applicant's fair trial rights due to the use of unlawfully obtained evidence was established, since, inter alia, "his arguments were addressed by the domestic courts and dismissed in well-reasoned decisions" (§ 49).
• EGMR, 12.03.2020 - 53791/11

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 72531/13

  The only issue which can possibly arise is whether the applicant had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses before Judge T., who was the third and final judge in the retrial and who ultimately convicted him (see Chernika v. Ukraine, no. 53791/11, §§ 35-78, 12 March 2020).
• EGMR, 17.11.2016 - 24037/08

  LELYUK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 12222/09

  ORLOVSKIY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 23543/02

  VOLOKHY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 10.12.2015 - 17969/09

  TIKHONOV v. UKRAINE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.03.2024 - 74785/14

  VOLKOV v. UKRAINE

  Rn. 28 In any event, given that he admitted to having accepted money from the person who was the target of a criminal investigation which the applicant had conducted and having used it to repay a personal debt, the evidence collected as a result of the surveillance measures had a limited impact on the applicant's conviction (compare Lysyuk v. Ukraine, no. 72531/13, 14 October 2021).

  [2] At the relevant time, section 8 of the Act provided that the use of technical means of obtaining information during operational-search activities had to be authorised by a court decision (see Berlizev v. Ukraine, no. 43571/12, § 27, 8 July 2021, and Lysyuk v. Ukraine, no. 72531/13, § 32, 14 October 2021).

• EGMR, 13.02.2025 - 22790/19

  DENYSYUK v. UKRAINE

  The Court's findings as to the potential effectiveness of this remedy in the cases of Orlovskiy and Tikhonov cited by the Government (ibid.), and later in Lysyuk v. Ukraine (no. 72531/13, judgment of 14 October 2021, §§ 42-46) were therefore not relevant to their case.
• EGMR, 23.01.2025 - 31175/14

  REZNIK v. UKRAINE

  Rn. 86 The Court considers that the introduction of this procedure, which did not feature in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960, has provided an important safeguard to the owners of seized items in the search and seizure operations (compare Vinci Construction and GTM Génie Civil et Services, § 79; and Kırdök and Others, §§ 51 and 57, both cited above; and Lysyuk v. Ukraine, no. 72531/13, §§ 40-47, 14 October 2021; contrast Zosymov, §§ 61, 77, and 94-96 and Kuzmenko §§ 27-31, both cited above).

• EGMR, 19.06.2025 - 26371/16

  KYYKO v. UKRAINE

  As regards Article 6, it follows from the case file that the evidence collected as a result of the surveillance measure had a limited impact on the applicant's conviction (compare Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 37, ECHR 2000-V, and Lysyuk v. Ukraine, no. 72531/13, § 69, 14 October 2021).
• EGMR, 29.04.2025 - 56558/16

  BARBALATA c. ROUMANIE

  Dès lors, la Cour considère que l'enregistrement des conversations de P. avec la requérante s'est fait sur la base de l'autorisation visant P. que le juge avait délivrée le 20 juillet 2012 conformément à la loi (voir, a contrario, pour une procédure d'interception d'urgence sans l'autorisation d'un juge Dragoş Ioan Rusu c. Roumanie, no 22767/08, §§ 37-44, 31 octobre 2017, et, pour l'absence d'une autorisation par un juge, Berlizev c. Ukraine, no 43571/12, §§ 40-42, 8 juillet 2021, et Lysyuk c. Ukraine, no 72531/13, §§ 53-55, 14 octobre 2021).
• EGMR, 22.01.2026 - 36618/14

  VYKHOR v. UKRAINE

  In this connection the Court observes that, even assuming that that avenue could potentially bring about the examination of the core of his Article 8 complaints (see Lysyuk v. Ukraine, no. 72531/13, § 42, 14 October 2021), the criminal case against the applicant was opened in 2013 and was still under examination by the first-instance court as of January 2024.
• EGMR - 53492/20 (anhängig)

  VYGOVSKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE and 1 other application

  58925/14 and 4 others, §§ 39 and 40, 21 January 2021; Lysyuk v. Ukraine, no. 72531/13, § 44, 14 October 2021; Vadym Melnyk v. Ukraine, nos.
• EGMR, 09.10.2025 - 10415/16

  MISHCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  Rn. 25 In sum, the Court considers that the overall fairness of the trial was not irretrievably prejudiced by the admission of the contested evidence (compare Lysyuk v. Ukraine, no. 72531/13, §§ 68-76, 14 October 2021, and Macharik, cited above, §§ 55-59).
• EGMR, 16.09.2025 - 31722/22

  SEPPERN v. ESTONIA

  Nonetheless, it also found in those cases that the admission in evidence of information obtained thereby did not, in the given circumstances, conflict with the requirements of fairness guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 (see Lysyuk v. Ukraine, no. 72531/13, §§ 66-76, 14 October 2021; Hambardzumyan v. Armenia, no. 43478/11, §§ 78-81, 5 December 2019; Dragoş Ioan Rusu v. Romania, no. 22767/08, §§ 51-57, 31 October 2017; Dragojević v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 131-135, 15 January 2015; and Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, §§ 35-40, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 11.09.2025 - 26519/16

  YAKYMCHUK v. UKRAINE

  Rn. 59 The Court observes that it has already considered a similar admissibility objection in Lysyuk v. Ukraine (no. 72531/13, §§ 35 and 45-47, 14 October 2021) and dismissed it, finding that the applicant in that case, having raised the issue of the alleged unlawful surveillance in her appeals, had recourse to a domestic remedy which had been effective.
• EGMR, 20.03.2025 - 77559/17

  ROZENBLAT v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 52689/20 (anhängig)

  COBELEA v. ROMANIA