Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=28.04.2016&Aktenzeichen=41085/05
Timestamp: 2019-09-19 21:57:42
Document Index: 322958389

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 45', '§ 45', '§ 28', '§ 39', '§ 52', '§ 41', 'in fine', '§ 48', '§ 58', '§ 67']

EGMR, 28.04.2016 - 41085/05 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2016,15215
EGMR, 28.04.2016 - 41085/05 (https://dejure.org/2016,15215)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28.04.2016 - 41085/05 (https://dejure.org/2016,15215)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28. April 2016 - 41085/05 (https://dejure.org/2016,15215)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,15215) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (englisch)
The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (1960), as in force at the material time, can be found: as regards the obligation to investigate a crime - in Kaverzin v. Ukraine (no. 23893/03, § 45, 15 May 2012); as regards arrest of a suspect by the body of inquiry - in Strogan v. Ukraine (no. 30198/11, § 45, 6 October 2016); and as regards search of a house or other property - in Vasylchuk v. Ukraine (no. 24402/07, §§ 28-30, 13 June 2013) and Bagiyeva v. Ukraine (no. 41085/05, §§ 39 and 40, 28 April 2016).
The court did not provide any details as to the items or documents to be looked for, even though it could have done so given the narrow scope of the criminal case (see and compare with Bagiyeva v. Ukraine, no. 41085/05, § 52, 28 April 2016).
The question whether the way in which the police carried out the searches was duly circumscribed by the warrants which authorised them will be examined from the perspective of the necessity of the interference (see Robathin v. Austria, no. 30457/06, § 41 in fine, 3 July 2012, and Bagiyeva v. Ukraine, no. 41085/05, § 48, 28 April 2016).
Accordingly, it must be determined whether the Ukrainian legal system afforded him an "effective" remedy which allowed the competent national authority to both deal with the complaint and grant appropriate relief (see Bagiyeva v. Ukraine, no. 41085/05, § 58, 28 April 2016).
EGMR, 05.10.2017 - 32598/07
SUKHANOV v. UKRAINE
The Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum in this respect (see, for example, Bagiyeva v. Ukraine, no. 41085/05, § 67, 28 April 2016).