Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 55870/00   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2006,71264
EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 55870/00 (https://dejure.org/2006,71264)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.07.2006 - 55870/00 (https://dejure.org/2006,71264)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. Juli 2006 - 55870/00 (https://dejure.org/2006,71264)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,71264) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    EFIMENKO v. UKRAINE

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Not necessary to examine P1-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (73)Zitiert selbst (4)

  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

    Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 55870/00
    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, 09.11.2004 - 41984/98

    SVETLANA NAUMENKO v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 55870/00
    The Court recalls that it has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the present application (see Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, §§ 77-87, 9 November 2004).
  • EGMR, 04.05.1999 - 41974/98

    KUCHERENKO contre l'UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 55870/00
    Therefore, leaving aside the issue of whether such disciplinary proceedings in themselves may be said to meet other criteria of an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, § 61-62, 29 January 2004), this remedy is not independent of discretionary action by the authorities and is not directly available to those concerned (see Kucherenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 41974/98, 4 May 1999).
  • EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 4292/04

    GLOVA AND BREGIN v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 55870/00
    The relevant domestic authorities in such situations should be competent to take measures which can either prevent or compensate for the alleged violation (see, mutatis mutandis, Glova and Bregin v. Ukraine, nos. 4292/04 and 4347/04, §§ 13-14, 28 February 2006).
  • EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 24959/06

    MARUTSENKO v. UKRAINE

    Having regard to its well-established case-law on the matter, the Court finds that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the applicant's complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings (see, for example, Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 55870/00, § 64, 18 July 2006 and, for a recent authority, Gutka v. Ukraine, no. 45846/05, § 34, 8 April 2010).

    Having regard to its finding under Article 6 § 1 (see paragraph 28 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Zanghì v. Italy, 19 February 1991, § 23, Series A no. 194-C; and Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 55870/00, § 68, 18 July 2006).

  • EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 36545/02

    MOROZ AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    Thus, the proceedings, which started in July 1994 and ended on 8 February 2006, excluding the intervals between 4 November 1996 and 25 March 1997, 27 September 2000 and 15 January 2001, when no proceedings were pending, lasted over ten years and seven months (see Yemanakova v. Russia, no. 60408/00, § 41, 23 September 2004, and Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 55870/00, § 51, 18 July 2006).
  • EGMR, 30.11.2006 - 23786/02

    KRASNOSHAPKA v. UKRAINE

    As concerns disciplinary proceedings against judges, the Court has held previously that this remedy could not be considered effective for Convention purposes (see, Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 55870/00, § 49, 18 July 2006).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht