Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STOIANOVA ET NEDELCU c. ROUMANIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 6-1 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STOIANOVA AND NEDELCU v. ROMANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 03.02.2004 - 77517/01
• EGMR, 04.08.2005 - 77517/01, 77722/01

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

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.08.2005 - 77517/01

  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 regard to the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, in particular the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 26.08.2003 - 59493/00

  WITHEY contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.08.2005 - 77517/01

  There was not merely a theoretical possibility that the prosecution would pursue the charge (contrast Withey v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 59493/00, ECHR 2003-X): it was open to the prosecution to reopen the criminal investigation without having to seek leave from any domestic court that would have been obliged to consider the application according to certain criteria, including the fairness of reopening the case and whether an excessive period had passed since the decision discontinuing the investigation (contrast Withey, cited above).
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.08.2005 - 77517/01

  It also reiterates that one of the purposes of the right to trial within a reasonable period of time is to protect individuals from "remaining too long in a state of uncertainty about their fate" (see Stögmüller v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, p. 40, § 5).

• EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 40756/06

  VLAD AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having regard to its case-law on the subject (see, for instance, Stoianova and Nedelcu v. Romania, nos. 77517/01 and 77722/01, § 26, ECHR 2005-VIII; Georgescu v. Romania, no. 25230/03, §§ 93- 96, 13 May 2008; and Soare v. Romania, no. 72439/01, § 29, 16 June 2009) the Court considers that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.
• EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 5663/04

  BOROBAR AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  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 Stoianova and Nedelcu v. Romania, nos. 77517/01 and 77722/01, § 26, ECHR 2005-VIII, and Soare v. Romania, no. 72439/01, § 29, 16 June 2009).
• EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 26765/05

  OPREA c. ROUMANIE

  Le Gouvernement renvoie également aux affaires Stoianova et Nedelcu c. Roumanie (déc., nos 77517/01 et 77722/01, 3 février 2004), Temesan c. Roumanie (no 36293/02, §§ 26-30, 10 juin 2008), Isac c. Roumanie (déc., no 10523/05, 22 février 2011 et Cozma c. Roumanie (déc., no 12080/06, 11 octobre 2011) dans lesquelles la Cour a conclu à l'effectivité du recours prévu par l'article 504 du CPP en cas d'erreurs judiciaires ou de privation de liberté illégale au cours du procès pénal.

 
• EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 24916/05

  FLORIN IONESCU v. ROMANIA

  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 Stoianova and Nedelcu v. Romania, nos. 77517/01 and 77722/01, § 26, ECHR 2005-VIII, and Soare v. Romania, no. 72439/01, § 29, 16 June 2009).
• EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 15007/02

  IVANOV v. UKRAINE

  The Court notes that the criminal proceedings against the applicant were several times terminated and resumed, which discloses a serious deficiency in the prosecution system (see, mutatis mutandis, Baglay v. Ukraine, no. 22431/02, § 31, 8 November 2005 and Stoianova and Nedelcu v. Romania, nos. 77517/01 and 77722/01, § 20, ECHR 2005-...).
• EGMR, 31.01.2008 - 69435/01

  KARIMOV v. UKRAINE

  The Court notes that the civil proceedings against the applicant were suspended and resumed, due to re-opening of the criminal investigation against the applicant, which in itself discloses a serious deficiency as this re-opening occurred two and a half years after proceedings against the applicant were terminated (see, mutatis mutandis, Baglay v. Ukraine, no. 22431/02, § 31, 8 November 2005 and Stoianova and Nedelcu v. Romania, nos. 77517/01 and 77722/01, § 20, ECHR 2005-...).
• EGMR, 27.07.2010 - 34728/02

  ABABEI v. ROMANIA

  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 Stoianova and Nedelcu v. Romania, nos. 77517/01 and 77722/01, § 26, ECHR 2005-VIII; and Soare v. Romania, no. 72439/01, § 29, 16 June 2009).
• EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 26864/03

  VASHCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  The Court notes that the proceedings were terminated and resumed several times, which discloses a serious deficiency in the prosecution system (see, mutatis mutandis, Baglay v. Ukraine, no. 22431/02, § 31, 8 November 2005, and Stoianova and Nedelcu v. Romania, nos. 77517/01 and 77722/01, § 20, ECHR 2005-...).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 14809/03

  MAZURENKO v. UKRAINE

  The Court further notes three remittals of the case for an additional investigation, which are usually ordered as a result of errors committed by investigative authorities, the repetition of such orders within one set of proceedings discloses a serious deficiency in the prosecution system (see, mutatis mutandis, Baglay v. Ukraine, no. 22431/02, § 31, 8 November 2005 and Stoianova and Nedelcu v. Romania, nos. 77517/01 and 77722/01, § 20, ECHR 2005-...).