In the leading case of Korban v. Ukraine , no. 26744/16, §§ 158-81, 4   July 2019, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.

Ukraine , no. 6759/11, §§   22 ‑ 28, 16   April 2015) arrest report of 23/05/2001 Art. 5 (3) - lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention - from 23/05/2011 to 20/09/2011 ( Korban

la sûreté d’Istanbul, section antiterroriste, [la police] a été informée que les individus en cause préparaient une attaque armée contre l’équipe de police chargée d’assurer la sécurité de la banque Koçbank

en faveur de la cause kurde, et pour avoir participé le 7 octobre 2014 à une manifestation organisée par le parti des travailleurs du Kurdistan (PKK) contre les massacres commis contre les Kurdes à Kobané

A B, représenté par Me Koban, demande au tribunal : 1°) de prononcer la décharge, en droits et pénalités, des rappels de taxe sur la valeur ajoutée mis sa charge au titre de la période couvrant l'année

    In the leading case of Korban v.   Ukraine (no.

  40107/02, §   86, 10 February 2011) and Korban v.   Ukraine ( no. 26744/16, §§ 158-81, 4 July 2019). REMAINING COMPLAINTS 13.     In application no.

    The applicant and Beogradski Pamučni Kombat , a company based in Belgrade (hereinafter: “the debtor”) concluded a contract on 7 March 2000.

  Ukraine , no. 40583/15, 15 December 2016, Korban v. Ukraine , no.   26744/16, 4 July 2019, and Nechay v. Ukraine , no. 15360/10, 1   July 2021. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 13.

the whole, their assessment of the question of the application of house arrest in the applicant’s case, which is to be seen as constituting deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 (see Korban

    In the leading case of Korban v. Ukraine (no. 26744/16, §§ 158-81, 4   July 2019), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.

inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 29209/02 by Arjen Mathijs KOMAN

unilateral declaration Date of the applicant(s) comments to the Government’s unilateral declaration or of claims for just satisfaction Amount awarded (in euros)   53311/07 20/11/2007 Jovan MIRČEVSKI Kočani

During the above period, from 27   May   to 24 June 2016, the applicant’s detention was replaced by 24-hour house arrest (see Korban v. Ukraine , no. 26744/16, § 138, 4 July 2019). 8.

  31720/02, §§   41 and 63-64, 20 September 2012; and see, as a recent authority, Korban v. Ukraine , no. 26744/16, §§ 132-36, 4 July 2019). 17.

, in a number of cases, found that in Ukrainian law there is no enforceable right to compensation in situations where a violation of Article   5 is found by the Court (see, for example,   Korban

reasons given for pre-trial detention, fragility of the reasons employed by the court, failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention, 31/10/2022 - 24/05/2024 (see Korban

restraint   Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - the applicant was held in a metal cage during the trial hearings on 09/02/2017, 15/02/2017 and 24/02/2017 ( Korban

    Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention, in the light of its findings in Korban v.