Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GORDEYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings Article 6-1 - Access to court) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 28.06.1990 - 11761/85

  Obermeier ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 40618/04

  As regards the last criterion, it has been the Court's constant approach that employment disputes require the authorities to act with particular expedition (see, mutatis mutandis, Obermeier v. Austria, judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A no. 179, § 72).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 40618/04

  In that connection the Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court or to substitute its own assessment for that of the national courts or other national authorities unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, for example, García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, §§ 28-29, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 40618/04

  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, 15.02.2007 - 22000/03

  RAYLYAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 40618/04

  The Court recalls that the reasonableness of the delay is to be determined having regard in particular to the complexity of the enforcement proceedings, the applicant's behaviour and that of the competent authorities, and what was at stake for the applicant in a given case (see Raylyan v. Russia, no. 22000/03, §§ 31-34, 15 February 2007, with further references).
• EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 24564/04

  MESHCHERYAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 40618/04

  Having regard to the overall length of the proceedings and the levels of jurisdiction involved, as well as the applicant's own responsibility for the delays, the Court concludes that the length of the proceedings taken as a whole did not exceed the "reasonable time" requirement set out in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Meshcheryakov v. Russia, no. 24564/04, § 45, 3 February 2011).
• EGMR, 28.05.2014 - 2746/05

  KOPNIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 40618/04

  Given what was at stake for the applicant and that the judgment of 17 January 2005 in this part was subject to immediate enforcement requiring special diligence, the Court finds that this delay was unreasonable (see, mutatis mutandis, Kopnin and Others v. Russia, no. 2746/05, § 33, 28 May 2014).