CASE OF TYMOSHENKO v. UKRAINE
Hearing: Tymoshenko v. Ukraine (no. 49872/11) (Chamber hearing, 2012-08-28 00:00:00)
Application no.: 49872/11
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2013-04-30 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0430JUD004987211
Respondent state: UKR
Articles of the Convention: 3;5;5-1;5-1-c;5-4;5-5;18;18+5-1-c;35
Judges: André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Ganna Yudkivska;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger
Represented by: TELICHENKO V. ; VLASENKO S.
Issue: Act “On the procedure for compensation for damage caused to citizens by the unlawful acts of bodies of enquiry, pre-trial investigation authorities, prosecutor’s offices and courts”
Strasbourg case-law cited: Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 76, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI;Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, §§ 139-140, 22 December 2008;Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII;Belchev v. Bulgaria, no. 39270/98, § 82, 8 April 2004;Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, § 60, Series A no. 111;Butkevicius v. Lithuania, no. 48297/99, § 43, ECHR 2002-II;Çagdas Sahin v. Turkey, no. 28137/02, § 34, 11 April 2006;Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, § 33, 13 March 2007;Cebotari v. Moldova, no. 35615/16, §§ 46 et seq., 13 November 2007;Doronin v. Ukraine, no. 16505/02, § 59, 19 February 2009;Dzwonkowski v. Poland, no. 46702/99, § 51, 12 April 2007;Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, § 79, 4 October 2011;Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, § 89, 14 December 2000;Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70726/01, 19 May 2004;Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 117, 7 November 2006;Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, 29 November 2007;Iglin v. Ukraine, no. 39908/05, § 52, 12 January 2012;Ignatenco v. Moldova, no. 36988/07, §§ 77-78, 8 February 2011;Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25;Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, 15 May 2012;Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, 10 February 2011;Khayredinov v. Ukraine, no. 38717/04, §§ 27-28, 14 October 2010;Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011;Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts);Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X;Knyazev v. Russia, no. 25948/05, § 103, 8 November 2007;Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI;Labita v. Italy [GC], no 26772/95 ECHR 2000-IV;Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005;Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 6492/11, 3 July 2012;Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III;Mathew v. the Netherlands, no. 24919/03, 29 September 2005;Medvedyev and Others v. France [GC], no. 3394/03, § 80, ECHR 2010;Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, 28 March 2006;Molodorych v. Ukraine, no. 2161/02, 28 October 2010;Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX;Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, no. 42310/04, § 233, 21 April 2011;Nešták v. Slovakia, no. 65559/01, § 74, 27 February 2007;Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005;Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 80, 13 September 2005;Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II;Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III;Piryanik v. Ukraine, no. 75788/01, § 20, 19 April 2005;Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006;Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336;Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, 4 October 2005;Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V;Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006;Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia [GC], no. 60654/00, § 129, ECHR 2007-II;Solovey and Zozulya v. Ukraine, nos. 40774/02 and 4048/03, 27 November 2008;Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 182, 17 January 2012;Svetoslav Dimitrov v. Bulgaria, no. 55861/00, § 76, 7 February 2008;Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 1999-IV;Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, § 73, ECHR 2006-XV (extracts);Visloguzov v. Ukraine, no. 32362/02, § 46, 20 May 2010;Yeloyev v. Ukraine, no. 17283/02, §§ 52-55, 6 November 2008
External sources: Report to the Ukrainian Government on the visit to Ukraine carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 29 November to 6 December 2011 [CPT/Inf (2012) 30]
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority;Reasonably necessary to prevent fleeing);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review;Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Violation of Article 18+5-1-c - Limitation on use of restrictions on rights (Article 18 - Restrictions for unauthorised purposes) (Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority)
Separate opinion: TRUE