Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 04.10.2018 - 49785/06 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,31181) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
GORKOVLYUK AND KAGANOVSKIY v. UKRAINE
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
GORKOVLYUK AND KAGANOVSKIY v. UKRAINE
Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 34884/97
BOTTAZZI c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2018 - 49785/06
According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], no. 34884/97, § 30, ECHR 1999-V). - EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08
CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2018 - 49785/06
Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings under Article 3 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in relation to the first applicant, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in relation to the second applicant (see paragraphs 86, 99 and 111 above), the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application, and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the above-mentioned complaints (see, for example, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). - EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94
PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2018 - 49785/06
According to the well-established principles of the Court's case-law, 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, and the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II). - EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2018 - 49785/06
The Court emphasises that where an individual raises an arguable claim that he or she has been seriously ill-treated by police in breach of Article 3, that provision requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, § 102, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 31, ECHR 2000-IV). - EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 11447/04
LOSHENKO v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2018 - 49785/06
The Court reiterates that the decisive question in assessing the effectiveness of a remedy concerning a complaint about the length of proceedings is whether an applicant can raise this complaint before domestic courts by claiming specific redress; in other words, whether a remedy exists that could answer his or her complaints by providing direct and speedy redress (see Loshenko v. Ukraine, no. 11447/04, § 28, 11 December 2008).