Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=03.07.2012&Aktenzeichen=6492%2F11
Timestamp: 2018-08-18 16:07:29
Document Index: 770375816

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 18', 'Art. 18', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 41', '§ 73', '§ 46', '§ 108', '§ 129', '§ 73', '§ 46', '§ 108', '§ 104', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 318', '§ 258', '§ 108', '§ 141', '§ 156', '§ 106', '§ 95', '§ 106', '§ 72', '§ 73', '§ 37', '§ 105', '§ 104']

EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 6492/11 - dejure.org
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 18, Art. 18+5, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty Lawful arrest or detention Procedure prescribed by law Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Information on reasons for arrest Prompt information) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review Review of lawfulness of detention) Violation of Article 18+5 - Limitation on use of restrictions on rights (Article 18 - Restrictions for unauthorised purposes) (Article 5 - Right to liberty and security) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)
LUTSENKO v. UKRAINE - [Deutsche Übersetzung] summary by the Austrian Institute for Human Rights (ÖIM)
[DEU] Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law;Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Information on reasons for arrest;Prompt information);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review;Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 18+5 - Limitation on use of restrictions on rights (Article 18 - Restrictions for unauthorised purposes) (Article 5 - Right to liberty and security);Non-pecuniary damage - award
Gerichtshof rügt Justiz in der Ukraine
spiegel.de (Pressebericht, 04.07.2012)
Gericht rügt Willkür der Justiz in der Ukraine
Justizwillkür in Ukraine verurteilt
NJW 2013, 2409
The Court was satisfied that such standard was met only in few cases, such as Gusinskiy v. Russia (no. 70276/01, § 73-78, ECHR 2004); Cebotari v. Moldova (no. 35615/06, §§ 46 et seq., 13 November 2007); or Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 6492/11, § 108, 3 July 2012; see, as an opposite example, Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, § 129, ECHR 2007-I).
As a consequence, the Court has only been satisfied in a few cases that such a standard was met, such as Gusinskiy v. Russia (cited above, §§ 73-78); Cebotari v. Moldova (no. 35615/06, §§ 46 et seq., 13 November 2007); or Lutsenko v. Ukraine, (no. 6492/11, § 108, 3 July 2012).
These cases were (in chronological order): Gusinskiy (cited above); Cebotari v. Moldova (no. 35615/06, 13 November 2007); Tymoshenko v. Ukraine (no. 49872/11, 30 April 2013); Lutsenko v. Ukraine (no. 6492/11, 3 July 2012); Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 15172/13, 22 May 2014); and Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan (no. 69981/14, 17 March 2016).
[8] Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 6492/11, 3 July 2012.
Turning to the present case, the Court notes the overall similarity of its circumstances to those examined in the case of Lutsenko v. Ukraine (no. 6492/11, § 104, 3 July 2012).
EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 48653/13
RASHAD HASANOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
The Court considers it necessary to note at the outset that it has already found that the applicants" arrest and pre-trial detention were not carried out for a purpose prescribed under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention (see paragraphs 97-108 above), as the charges against them were not based on a "reasonable suspicion" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention (contrast Merabishvili, cited above, § 318, Khodorkovskiy, cited above, § 258, and compare Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 6492/11, § 108, 3 July 2012; Ilgar Mammadov, cited above, § 141; and Rasul Jafarov, cited above, § 156).
While findings of violations of Article 18 have been quite rare, in part because of the exacting standard applied by the Court as a result of the presumption that States generally comply with their Convention obligations in good faith (see Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 6492/11, §§ 106-07, 3 July 2012), the Court has nevertheless found violations of Article 18 of the Convention in a number of cases.
EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 36997/08
CERNÁK v. SLOVAKIA
It may also be essential that the individual concerned should not only have the opportunity to be heard in person but that he should also have the effective assistance of his lawyer (for a summary of the relevant principles, see Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 6492/11, §§ 95 and 96, 3 July 2012, with further references).
According to the judgment in Lutsenko v. Ukraine (no. 6492/11, 3 July 2012), referred to by the Court, the essential conditions concerning the review of detention are: compliance with the procedural requirements of domestic law, the reasonableness of the suspicion underpinning the arrest and the legitimacy of the purpose pursued by the arrest and the ensuing detention.
Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 6492/11, §§ 106-07, 3 July 2012.
Besides, the Government's argument that the applicants had contributed to the length of the proceedings as, inter alia, they had not pleaded guilty to the offences charged by its nature runs contrary to such important elements of the fair trial concept as freedom from self-incrimination and the presumption of innocence and cannot, in any circumstances, be accepted (see, mutatis mutandis, Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 6492/11, § 72, 3 July 2012).
Admittedly, in three judgments the Court has said that if a national court does not fix the duration of pre-trial detention, that gives rise to uncertainty even if its maximum is clear from domestic law (see Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 6492/11, § 73, 3 July 2012; Gal, cited above, § 37; and Kleutin v. Ukraine, no. 5911/05, § 105, 23 June 2016).
EGMR, 19.04.2018 - 47145/14
MAMMADLI v. AZERBAIJAN
In that connection, the Court notes that it has already found that similar submissions made by an applicant are sufficient reasons to examine the issue of the applicant's detention from the viewpoint of Article 18 (see Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 6492/11, § 104, 3 July 2012).
EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 72508/13
EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 69981/14
RASUL JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN
EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 30198/11
STROGAN v. UKRAINE
EGMR, 26.11.2015 - 24213/08
BASENKO v. UKRAINE
EGMR, 12.02.2015 - 74297/11
PODVEZKO v. UKRAINE
EGMR, 02.10.2014 - 7554/10
VOLYANYK v. UKRAINE
EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 79917/13
BÎRSAN c. ROUMANIE
EGMR - 41303/11 (anhängig)
EGMR, 14.01.2016 - 38800/12
BUDAN v. UKRAINE
EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 2718/12
AVRAAMOVA v. UKRAINE
EGMR - 54014/13 (anhängig)
BABICH v. UKRAINE
EGMR - 7670/11 (anhängig)
LABAZNIKOV v. UKRAINE