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

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 70767/01   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2005,45317
EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 70767/01 (https://dejure.org/2005,45317)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06.09.2005 - 70767/01 (https://dejure.org/2005,45317)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06. September 2005 - 70767/01 (https://dejure.org/2005,45317)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,45317) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    PAVLYULYNETS v. UKRAINE

    Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 17, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 35 Abs. 4, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
    Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses : financial award (englisch)

 
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 ... (132)Zitiert selbst (9)

  • EGMR, 25.11.2003 - 41431/98

    WIERCISZEWSKA v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 70767/01
    Although the Court is not in a position to analyse the quality of the case-law of the domestic courts, it considers that, since the remittal of cases for re-examination is usually ordered as a result of errors committed by lower courts, the repetition of such orders within one set of proceedings discloses a serious deficiency in the judicial system (see Wierciszewska v. Poland, no. 41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96
    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 70767/01
    Rn. 46 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 and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 13.07.1983 - 8737/79

    Zimmermann und Steiner ./. Schweiz

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 70767/01
    Moreover, the Court observes that the Government were unable to give any example of a measure of either a methodological or structural character reflecting the State's willingness to tackle the problem (see Zimmermann and Steiner v. Switzerland, judgment of 13 July 1983, Series A no. 66, p. 12, § 31).
  • EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 45526/99

    GAYDUK ET AUTRES c. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 70767/01
    45526/99 and foll., ECHR 2002-VI (extracts).
  • EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 1086/02

    DZIZIN v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 70767/01
    Nor did he raise this complaint before any domestic court in accordance with the 1999 Law "on Enforcement Proceedings" (see Dzizin v. Ukraine (dec), no. 1086/02, 24 June 2003) or under the ordinary civil procedure.
  • EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 37437/97

    KUBISZYN v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 70767/01
    The Court recalls that the right to have criminal proceedings instituted against a third person is not, as such, guaranteed by the Convention (see, Kubiszyn v. Poland (dec.), no. 37437/97, 21 September 1999).
  • EGMR, 07.10.2003 - 36575/02

    KORNILOV and OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 70767/01
    The Court recalls that in certain previous cases against Ukraine, it has held that periods of eight months (see Kornilov and Others v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 36575/02, 7 October 2003), and even of two years and seven months (see Krapyvnitsky v. Ukraine, no. 60858/00, decision of 17 September 2002), were not so excessive as to raise an arguable claim under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 27.06.2002 - 48771/99

    DELIC v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 70767/01
    The Court notes that the Convention places a duty on the Contracting States to organise their legal systems so as to allow the courts to comply with the requirements of Article 6 § 1, including that of determinations within a "reasonable time" (see, among many others, Delić v. Croatia, no. 48771/99, § 106, 27 June 2002).
  • EGMR, 17.09.2002 - 60858/00

    KRAPYVNYTSKIY contre l'UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 70767/01
    The Court recalls that in certain previous cases against Ukraine, it has held that periods of eight months (see Kornilov and Others v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 36575/02, 7 October 2003), and even of two years and seven months (see Krapyvnitsky v. Ukraine, no. 60858/00, decision of 17 September 2002), were not so excessive as to raise an arguable claim under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 32038/04

    LYUTOV v. UKRAINE

    The Court reiterates that it can take into account only those periods when the case was actually pending before the courts, thus excluding from the calculation those periods between the adoption of the final and binding judgments and their revocation in the course of extraordinary proceedings (see Markin v. Russia (dec.), no. 59502/00, 16 September 2004, and Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, §§ 41-42, 6 September 2005).

    The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see, for example, Yakymenko v. Ukraine, no. 19142/03, §§ 32-39, 29 May 2008; Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, §§ 49-50, 6 September 2005, and Golovko v. Ukraine, no. 39161/02, § 50, 1 February 2007).

  • EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 23747/05

    SHEPTITSKAYA AND SHEPTITSKIY v. UKRAINE

    It thus lasted about seven years and four months for three levels of jurisdiction, excluding the period between 13 and 30 November 2000 when no proceedings were pending in the case (see Markin v. Russia (dec.), no. 59502/00, 16 September 2004, and Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, §§ 41-42, 6 September 2005).

    The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Frydlender, cited above; Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, § 49-53, 6 September 2005; and Vashchenko v. Ukraine, no. 26864/03, § 50, 26 June 2008).

  • EGMR, 03.10.2018 - 10347/07

    STARYGIN AGAINST UKRAINE AND 170 OTHER CASES

    70767/01.
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