Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MERIT v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 5 MRK
  Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Inadmissible under Art. 5 6-2 6-3 P1-1 and P7-4 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 66561/01
• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 66561/01
• EGMR, 01.10.2020 - 66561/01

Wird zitiert von ... (20)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 66561/01

  The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred in order to prevent or obtain redress for the matter found to constitute a violation of the Convention and were reasonable as to quantum (see Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

  König ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 66561/01

  As regards the end of the "time", in criminal matters the period governed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention covers the whole of the proceedings in issue, including appeal proceedings (see König v. Germany, judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, p. 33, § 98).
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 66561/01

  The Court further recalls that the decisive question in assessing the effectiveness of a remedy concerning a complaint about the length of proceedings is whether the applicant can raise this complaint before domestic courts by claiming specific redress; in other words, whether a remedy exists that could answer his complaints by providing direct and speedy redress, and not merely indirect protection of the rights guaranteed in Article 6 of the Convention (see Deweer v. Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 16, § 29).

 
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 66561/01

  According to the Court's case-law, the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case and having regard to the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, in particular the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and of the authorities dealing with the case (see, among other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II; and Philis v. Greece (no. 2), judgment of 27 June 1997, ECHR 1997-IV, p. 1083, § 35).
• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 66561/01

  It recalls that in criminal matters, the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention begins to run as soon as a person is "charged"; this may occur on a date prior to the case coming before the trial court (see, for example the above-mentioned, Deweer v. Belgium, judgment, p. 22, § 42), such as the date of arrest, the date when the person concerned was officially notified that he would be prosecuted or the date when preliminary investigations were opened (see Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, pp. 26-27, § 19; Neumeister v. Austria, judgment of the same date, Series A no. 8, p. 41, § 18, and Ringeisen v. Austria, judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 45, § 110).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 66561/01

  It recalls that in criminal matters, the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention begins to run as soon as a person is "charged"; this may occur on a date prior to the case coming before the trial court (see, for example the above-mentioned, Deweer v. Belgium, judgment, p. 22, § 42), such as the date of arrest, the date when the person concerned was officially notified that he would be prosecuted or the date when preliminary investigations were opened (see Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, pp. 26-27, § 19; Neumeister v. Austria, judgment of the same date, Series A no. 8, p. 41, § 18, and Ringeisen v. Austria, judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 45, § 110).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 66561/01

  It recalls that in criminal matters, the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention begins to run as soon as a person is "charged"; this may occur on a date prior to the case coming before the trial court (see, for example the above-mentioned, Deweer v. Belgium, judgment, p. 22, § 42), such as the date of arrest, the date when the person concerned was officially notified that he would be prosecuted or the date when preliminary investigations were opened (see Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, pp. 26-27, § 19; Neumeister v. Austria, judgment of the same date, Series A no. 8, p. 41, § 18, and Ringeisen v. Austria, judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 45, § 110).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 66561/01

  The Court has also held that a remedy is "effective" if it can be used either to expedite a decision by the courts dealing with the case, or to provide the litigant with adequate redress for delays that have already occurred (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 157-159, ECHR 2000-XI; Mifsud v. France (dec.), [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 7604/76

  FOTI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 66561/01

  "Charge", for the purposes of Article 6 § 1, may be defined as "the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence", a definition that also corresponds to the test whether "the situation of the [suspect] has been substantially affected" (see, the above-mentioned Deweer v. Belgium judgment, p. 24, § 46; Foti and Others v. Italy, judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56, § 52).
• EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

  BRUSCO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 66561/01

  Furthermore, it finds that this case differs from the length of proceedings cases against Italy (and similar cases against Slovakia and Croatia) where the applicants could be expected to have recourse to the remedy introduced by the "Pinto Act", after they had lodged their applications with the Court, since the remedy specified in the Pinto Act satisfied the criteria of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention as to its effectiveness and accessibility (see, for example, Giacometti and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 34939/97, ECHR 2001-XII, or Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX).

• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE

  In reviewing whether the rule has been observed, it is essential to have regard to the existence of formal remedies in the legal system of the State concerned, the general legal and political context in which they operate, as well as the particular circumstances of the case and whether the applicant did everything that could reasonably be expected in order to exhaust available domestic remedies (see Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, § 58, 30 March 2004).

  As to the Government's first suggestion, that a complaint be lodged with the public prosecutor who is responsible for supervising the general lawfulness of the enforcement of judgments in criminal cases, the Court finds that this cannot be considered an effective and accessible remedy, given that the prosecutor's status under domestic law does not offer adequate safeguards for an independent and impartial review of the applicant's complaints (see the judgments in Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, § 63, 30 March 2004; mutatis mutandis, Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 116, ECHR 2005-... (extracts), and Salov v. Ukraine, no. 65518/01, § 58, 6 September 2005).

• EGMR, 08.02.2024 - 13577/16

  STOROZHUK AND KONONOV v. UKRAINE

  (c) a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the length of the criminal proceedings against Mr K.S. Kononov, in the light of the Court's findings in Pélissier and Sassi v. France ([GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II); Frydlender v. France ([GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII); and Merit v. Ukraine (no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004).
• EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 19312/06

  VERGELSKYY v. UKRAINE

  As regards the end of the "time", in criminal matters the period governed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention covers the whole of the proceedings in issue, including appeal proceedings ( see Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, § 70, 30 March 2004).

  The Court further refers to its finding in the Merit case about the lack of an effective and accessible remedy under domestic law for complaints in respect of the length of criminal proceedings (see Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, §§ 78-79, 30 March 2004).

 
• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 23893/03

  KAVERZIN v. UKRAINE

  The Court considers that such reluctance on the part of prosecutors, in particular in situations where criminal suspects were allegedly ill-treated with the aim of extracting a confession, could be explained, at least to a certain extent, by prosecutors" conflicting tasks in criminal proceedings - prosecution on behalf of the State and supervision of the lawfulness of pre-trial investigations (see, mutatis mutandis, Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 116, ECHR 2005-II (extracts); Salov v. Ukraine, no. 65518/01, § 58, 6 September 2005; Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, § 63, 30 March 2004; Melnik, cited above, § 69; Koval v. Ukraine, no. 65550/01, § 95, 19 October 2006; reports by the Ukrainian Ombudsman at paragraphs 55-59 above and the relevant observations of the UN Committee against Torture at paragraph 75 above).
• EGMR, 01.07.2021 - 15360/10

  NECHAY v. UKRAINE

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Merit v. Ukraine, (no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004).
• EGMR, 07.01.2010 - 24407/04

  ONOUFRIOU v. CYPRUS

  Only after this burden of proof has been discharged does it fall to the applicant to prove that there existed special circumstances absolving him from the requirement (see Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, § 57, 30 March 2004).
• EGMR, 18.06.2009 - 7307/05

  BEVZ v. UKRAINE

  It has frequently found violations of Article 13 of the Convention because the current Ukrainian legislation does not provide a remedy for complaints concerning the length of proceedings (see Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, §§ 78-79, 30 March 2004 and subsequent case-law).
• EGMR, 02.03.2023 - 38328/14

  KHRUS AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  (b) a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the length of the criminal proceedings against him, in the light of the Court's findings in Pélissier and Sassi v. France ([GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II), Frydlender v. France ([GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII) and Merit v. Ukraine (no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004).
• EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 15528/11

  BOGOMOL v. UKRAINE

  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it discloses a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the light of its findings in Pélissier and Sassi v. France ([GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II), Frydlender v. France ([GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII) and Merit v. Ukraine (no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004).
• EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 20808/02

  SHALIMOV v. UKRAINE

  The Court further refers to its finding in the Merit case about lack of an effective and accessible remedy under domestic law for complaints in respect of the length of criminal proceedings (see Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, §§ 78-79, 30 March 2004).
• EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 39730/06

  JAVAUGUE c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 40765/02

  APOSTOL v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 16.09.2021 - 1781/14

  LUTAYENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 12.12.2019 - 63754/09

  PIKHUN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 54630/13

  GORYANOY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 9414/13

  SOKIL v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 03.01.2013 - 41662/05

  DROGOBETSKAYA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 25821/02

  LUGOVOY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 68049/13

  MAKARUK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 02.09.2008 - 42484/02

  LEBEDEV v. UKRAINE