Gorshkov v Ukraine 67531/01 (2005) ECHR 936: Difference between revisions
(Created page with '''Although a detained patient's case was regularly reviewed on an automatic basis, the patient had no right to initiate proceedings and was not a party to them; there therefore h...') |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''Although a detained patient's case was regularly reviewed on an automatic basis, the patient had no right to initiate proceedings and was not a party to them; there therefore had been a breach of [[Article 5]](4)'' | ''Although a detained patient's case was regularly reviewed on an automatic basis, the patient had no right to initiate proceedings and was not a party to them; there therefore had been a breach of [[Article 5]](4)'' | ||
==Related judgments== | |||
[[Gorshkov v Ukraine 67531/01 (2005) ECHR 936]] | |||
*[[Gorshkov v Ukraine 67531/01 (2004) ECHR 726]] (admissibility) | |||
==External link== | ==External link== | ||
Revision as of 13:07, 10 April 2009
Although a detained patient's case was regularly reviewed on an automatic basis, the patient had no right to initiate proceedings and was not a party to them; there therefore had been a breach of Article 5(4)
Related judgments
Gorshkov v Ukraine 67531/01 [2005] ECHR 936
- Gorshkov v Ukraine 67531/01 [2004] ECHR 726 (admissibility)
External link
The following categories (in blue boxes) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: