Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=16.09.2010&Aktenzeichen=26127/03
Timestamp: 2019-05-27 04:55:06
Document Index: 32316362

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 6', '§ 49', '§ 49', '§ 4', '§ 73', '§ 92', '§ 84', '§ 54', '§ 84', '§ 4', '§ 73', '§ 92', '§ 54']

EGMR, 16.09.2010 - 26127/03 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2010,64308
EGMR, 16.09.2010 - 26127/03 (https://dejure.org/2010,64308)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 16.09.2010 - 26127/03 (https://dejure.org/2010,64308)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 16. September 2010 - 26127/03 (https://dejure.org/2010,64308)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,64308) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)
EGMR, 15.12.2011 - 5203/09
KONDRATYEV v. UKRAINE
The Court considers, therefore, that it is not appropriate to take these matters up separately now (see Vitruk v. Ukraine, no. 26127/03, § 49, 16 September 2010).
EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 40107/02
The Court considers, therefore, that it is not appropriate now to take these matters up separately (see Vitruk v. Ukraine, no. 26127/03, § 49, 16 September 2010).
EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 50264/08
ANATOLIY RUDENKO AGAINST UKRAINE AND 5 OTHER CASES
26127/03.
EGMR, 29.09.2011 - 16698/05
TRETYAKOV v. UKRAINE
The Court notes that in several cases against Ukraine it has already found that for the purposes of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention the fact that a detainee's complaint about the unlawfulness of his detention was reviewed did not suffice and that it was necessary that the grounds for detention were examined on the merits in the circumstances of the applicant's particular situation (see, for example, Buryaga v. Ukraine, no. 27672/03, §§ 73-74, 15 July 2010; Vitruk v. Ukraine, no. 26127/03, §§ 92-93, 16 September 2010; and Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, § 84-85, 10 February 2011).
EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 5976/08
ZGONNIK v. UKRAINE
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.
Those bruises can hardly be regarded as matching the applicant's description of his alleged ill-treatment (see and compare with Vitruk v. Ukraine, no. 26127/03, § 54, 16 September 2010).
EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 49122/07
EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 25032/11
GUDZ v. UKRAINE
The Court notes that in the case of Kharchenko v. Ukraine (cited above, §§ 84-85 and 100), as well as in a number of other cases against Ukraine, it has already noted that by virtue of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention detainees were entitled to have access to a procedure whereby the reasonableness of their continuing detention could be speedily examined in the light of their particular situations and individual circumstances (see, for example, Buryaga v. Ukraine, no. 27672/03, §§ 73-74, 15 July 2010; Vitruk v. Ukraine, no. 26127/03, §§ 92-93, 16 September 2010).
EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 27892/05
BONDARENKO v. UKRAINE
The Court observes, however, that on the following day the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert who reported that there had been no injuries to the applicant's body and none complained of (see paragraph 11 above and compare with Vitruk v. Ukraine, no. 26127/03, § 54, 16 September 2010).