Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=12.01.2012&Aktenzeichen=3299/05
Timestamp: 2019-05-22 12:04:10
Document Index: 330185091

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 3', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 34', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 41', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 34', '§ 44', '§ 82', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 74', '§ 56', '§ 102', '§ 153', '§ 61', '§ 81', '§ 74', '§ 56']

EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 3299/05 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2012,15819
EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 3299/05 (https://dejure.org/2012,15819)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12.01.2012 - 3299/05 (https://dejure.org/2012,15819)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12. Januar 2012 - 3299/05 (https://dejure.org/2012,15819)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,15819) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) No violation of Art. 34 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)
As the Court has held in the cases of Borisenko v. Ukraine (no. 25725/02, § 44, 12 January 2012) and Ustyantsev v. Ukraine (no. 3299/05, § 82, 12 January 2012), Article 5 § 3 of the Convention does not apply to situations amounting to "lawful detention after conviction by a competent court" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
Moreover, it appears that the Government refer to a decision which was examined by the Court in the same context and found to be of no relevance for the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Petukhov v. Ukraine, no. 43374/02, § 74-78, 21 October 2010, and Ustyantsev v. Ukraine, no. 3299/05, §§ 56-58, 12 January 2012).
EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 28969/04
SAMOYLOVICH v. UKRAINE
Having regard to general principles established in its case-law (see I. A. v. France, judgment of 23 September 1998, § 102, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 153, ECHR 2000-IV; Ilowiecki v. Poland, no. 27504/95, §§ 61-63, 4 October 2001; and Ustyantsev v. Ukraine, no. 3299/05, § 81, 12 January 2012), the Court considers that, regard being had to the particularly lengthy period of the applicant's detention in the present case, the reasons for it should have been exceptionally serious.
EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 45947/06
Moreover, it appears that the Government are referring to the decision which has been examined by the Court in the same context and found to be of no relevance for the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies since it was a single example of successful litigation in a case in which a violation had previously been found by this Court (see Petukhov v. Ukraine, no. 43374/02, § 74-78, 21 October 2010, and Ustyantsev v. Ukraine, no. 3299/05, §§ 56-58, 12 January 2012).