Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TUGARINOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 20455/04

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 20455/04

  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 applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 20455/04

  Bearing in mind the prominent place which the right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal holds in a democratic society (see, inter alia, De Cubber v. Belgium, judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86, p. 16, § 30), the Court considers that the State should bear the responsibility for a delay incurred through a successful challenge of the trial bench by a party to the proceedings.

• EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 55669/00

  NAKHMANOVICH v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 20455/04

  The Court observes that there is no causal link between the violations found and the pecuniary damage claimed (see Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, § 102, 2 March 2006).
• EGMR, 04.03.2004 - 72159/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 20455/04

  The Court further reiterates that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention imposes on Contracting States the duty to organise their judicial system in such a way that their courts can meet the obligation to decide the cases within a reasonable time (see, among other authorities, Löffler v. Austria (No. 2), no. 72159/01 § 57, 4 March 2004).
• EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 10675/02

  KUSMIEREK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 20455/04

  The Court reiterates that the delay occasioned by their failure to attend at least nine hearings and the courts' failure to discipline them is attributable to the State (see Kusmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, § 65, 21 September 2004).
• EGMR, 08.03.2007 - 4459/03

  SIDORENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 20455/04

  If a court accepts a party's request for a change in the composition of the bench, it inevitably means that the fears of that party as to the impartiality and independence of the tribunal are justified (see Sidorenko v. Russia, no. 4459/03, § 32, 8 March 2007).
• EGMR, 21.11.2002 - 36747/02

  ARSLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 20455/04

  Having regard to the fact that the final judgment in his case was issued on 18 November 2003, the Court considers that he raised his complaint of excessive length of the criminal proceedings within the six-month time-limit established by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Arslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36747/02, ECHR 2002-X (extracts), and Gaspari v. Slovenia, no. 21055/03, § 35, 21 July 2009).
• EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 29510/04

  MARCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 20455/04

  Therefore, the responsibility for an aggregated delay of approximately ten months caused by changes in the composition of the Ivolginskiy District Court and the transfer of the case to Sovetskiy District Court rests ultimately with the State (see Marchenko v. Russia, no. 29510/04, § 39, 5 October 2006).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.06.2017 - 53084/99

  KORMACHEVA ET 105 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA RUSSIE

  20455/04.

  20455/04.

• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 78042/16

  X ET Y c. RUSSIE

  Au demeurant, le Gouvernement n'a pas démontré que cette instance était compétente pour offrir le redressement souhaité par les intéressés (Tugarinov c. Russie, no 20455/04, § 49, 29 avril 2010, et Chevkin c. Russie, no 4171/03, § 47, 15 juin 2006).
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 17458/10

  DEMENTJEVA v. LATVIA

  The Court further observes that the national courts can not be held responsible for failing to discipline the parties to attend the hearings (to the contrary see Tugarinov v. Russia, no. 20455/04, § 43, 29 April 2010).