Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHALIMOV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 13 No violation of Art. 13 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 20808/02
• EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 20808/02
• EGMR - 20808/02

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 20808/02

  The Court never failed to note that "the existence of a remedy must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of Article 5 § 4 (see Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, p. 30, § 54; De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 19, § 39; and YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, p. 17, § 42 and many others).
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

  DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 20808/02

  The Court never failed to note that "the existence of a remedy must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of Article 5 § 4 (see Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, p. 30, § 54; De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 19, § 39; and YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, p. 17, § 42 and many others).
• EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77

  VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 20808/02

  The Court never failed to note that "the existence of a remedy must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of Article 5 § 4 (see Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, p. 30, § 54; De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 19, § 39; and YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, p. 17, § 42 and many others).

 
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 20808/02

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of these proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference 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, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Lugovoy v. Ukraine, no. 25821/02, § 33, 12 June 2008).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 20808/02

  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, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99

  Belgien, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Abschiebunghaft, Freiheit …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 20808/02

  The accessibility of a remedy implies, inter alia, that the circumstances voluntarily created by the authorities must be such as to afford applicants a realistic possibility of using the remedy (see, mutatis mutandis, Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, §§ 46 and 55, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 66561/01

  MERIT v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 20808/02

  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, 08.07.2004 - 42987/98

  VACHEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 20808/02

  The existence of the remedy required by Article 5 § 4 must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis, Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 66 in fine, 24 March 2005, and Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 71, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 9808/02

  STOICHKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 20808/02

  The existence of the remedy required by Article 5 § 4 must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis, Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 66 in fine, 24 March 2005, and Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 71, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 25821/02

  LUGOVOY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 20808/02

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of these proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference 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, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Lugovoy v. Ukraine, no. 25821/02, § 33, 12 June 2008).
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11105/84

  HUVIG c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

  KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 25537/08

  KOMISSAROVA v. RUSSIA

  The Court has found that bans on family visits were not "in accordance with the law" where domestic law did not meet the "quality of law" requirements (see Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 107, 13 September 2005; Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, §§ 171-173, 18 January 2007; Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, §§ 125-126, 12 June 2008; and Shalimov v. Ukraine, no. 20808/02, §§ 88-89, 4 March 2010).