Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MALKOV v. ESTONIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 Remainder inadmissible (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 55939/00

  SULAOJA v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2010 - 31407/07

  The Court reiterates that the general principles regarding the right "to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial", as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among other authorities, Kudla, cited above, § 110 et seq.; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41 et seq., ECHR 2006-X; and Sulaoja v. Estonia, no. 55939/00, §§ 61-64, 15 February 2005, with further references).
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 19348/04

  Sorvisto ./. Finnland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2010 - 31407/07

  In cases concerning the failure to observe the reasonable time requirement guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the national authorities can afford adequate redress, in particular by reducing the applicant's sentence in an express and measurable manner (see, among others, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 77, ECHR 2006-V; Sorvisto v. Finland, no. 19348/04, § 66, 13 January 2009; Beck, cited above; and Kaletsch v. Germany, (dec.), no. 31890/06, 23 June 2009).
• EGMR, 12.10.2000 - 44186/98

  JANSEN contre l'ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2010 - 31407/07

  However, this general rule is subject to an exception when the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, a breach of the Convention (see, inter alia, Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 66, Series A no. 51; Jansen v. Germany (dec.), no. 44186/98, 12 October 2000; and Beck v. Norway, no. 26390/95, § 27, 26 June 2001).

 
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2010 - 31407/07

  According to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights the reasonableness of the length of proceedings is to be assessed by a court in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, regard being had to the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, in particular the complexity of the case, the applicant's conduct and the conduct of the competent authorities (see, for example, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2010 - 31407/07

  However, this general rule is subject to an exception when the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, a breach of the Convention (see, inter alia, Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 66, Series A no. 51; Jansen v. Germany (dec.), no. 44186/98, 12 October 2000; and Beck v. Norway, no. 26390/95, § 27, 26 June 2001).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2010 - 31407/07

  The Court, having regard to its case-law (see, for example, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 104-105, ECHR 2000-XI), finds that for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 the period in question came to an end on 4 September 2008, when the Viru County Court delivered its judgment convicting the applicant.
• EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 31890/06

  KALETSCH v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2010 - 31407/07

  In cases concerning the failure to observe the reasonable time requirement guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the national authorities can afford adequate redress, in particular by reducing the applicant's sentence in an express and measurable manner (see, among others, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 77, ECHR 2006-V; Sorvisto v. Finland, no. 19348/04, § 66, 13 January 2009; Beck, cited above; and Kaletsch v. Germany, (dec.), no. 31890/06, 23 June 2009).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2010 - 31407/07

  The Court reiterates that the purpose of Article 35 is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Convention institutions (see, among many other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).

• EGMR, 20.06.2019 - 497/17

  CHIARELLO v. GERMANY

  Juli 2018, und Malkov./. Estland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 31407/07, Rdnr. 40, 4.
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 54447/10

  MICHELIOUDAKIS c. GRÈCE

  Outre l'adoption d'un recours indemnitaire qui doit correspondre aux critères d'effectivité prévue par la jurisprudence (voir, en ce sens, Scordino (no 1), précité, §§ 194-206, et Bourdov (no 2), précité, § 99), la Cour relève qu'en cas de condamnation de l'intéressé, la réduction de la peine imposée en raison de la durée excessive d'une procédure pénale d'une manière expresse et mesurable peut aussi constituer une réparation satisfaisante à cet égard (voir, entre autres, Scordino c. Italie (no 1), précité, § 186 ; Malkov c. Estonie, no 31407/07, §§ 60-61, 4 février 2010 ; Freimanis et Lidums c. Lettonie, nos 73443/01 et 74860/01, § 68, 9 février 2006 ; Beck c. Norvège, no 26390/95, § 27, 26 juin 2001, Wejrup c. Danemark (déc.), no 49126/99, CEDH 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 36249/14

  LISOVSKIJ v. LITHUANIA

  The Court further notes that twenty-six of those hearings were adjourned, mainly because of the authorities" failure to ensure the presence of other co-accused or witnesses (see paragraphs 41-42 above; see also Malkov v. Estonia, no. 31407/07, § 51, 4 February 2010, and Kobernik v. Ukraine, no. 45947/06, § 62, 25 July 2013; compare and contrast Shikuta v. Russia, no. 45373/05, § 49, 11 April 2013).