Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VERGELSKYY v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 66561/01

  MERIT v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 19312/06

  As regards the end of the "time", in criminal matters the period governed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention covers the whole of the proceedings in issue, including appeal proceedings ( see Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, § 70, 30 March 2004).

  The Court further refers to its finding in the Merit case about the 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, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 19312/06

  The Court observes 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 (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 19312/06

  The Court reiterates that "[w]here an individual, when taken in police custody, is in good health, but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention" (see Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-11, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).

 
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 19312/06

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 34, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 19312/06

  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, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 19312/06

  What the State must do under this provision is to ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 102, ECHR 2001-VIII, § 102).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 19312/06

  The Court further recalls that for the period of nine months the applicant in the present case was held in custody - a fact which required particular diligence on the part of the authorities dealing with the case to administer justice expeditiously (see e.g. Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 83, ECHR 2003-IX and Yurtayev v. Ukraine, no. 11336/02, § 37, 31 January 2006).
• EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 55669/00

  NAKHMANOVICH v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 19312/06

  It further notes that an accused in criminal proceedings should be entitled to have his case conducted with special diligence and Article 6 is, in criminal matters, designed to avoid that a person charged should remain too long in a state of uncertainty about his fate (see, Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, § 89, 2 March 2006 and Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, § 71, 7 December 2006).
• EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 15007/02

  IVANOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 19312/06

  It further notes that an accused in criminal proceedings should be entitled to have his case conducted with special diligence and Article 6 is, in criminal matters, designed to avoid that a person charged should remain too long in a state of uncertainty about his fate (see, Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, § 89, 2 March 2006 and Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, § 71, 7 December 2006).
• EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 36898/03

  TREPASHKIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 19312/06

  In this respect the Court reiterates its case-law that pre-trial detention in itself does not raise an issue under Article 3 of the Convention (see as a recent authority Trepashkin v. Russia, no. 36898/03, § 91, 19 July 2007).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

• EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 52652/07

  GAVULA v. UKRAINE

  It also reiterates that where a person is held in custody pending the conclusion of the proceedings against him, this is a fact that requires particular diligence on the part of the authorities dealing with the case to administer justice expeditiously (see, for example, Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 83, ECHR 2003-IX; Yurtayev v. Ukraine, no. 11336/02, § 37, 31 January 2006; Vergelskyy v. Ukraine, no. 19312/06, § 117, 12 March 2009).
• EGMR, 29.01.2014 - 29085/06

  LYUBARETS v. UKRAINE

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Ukraine, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 and one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, 10 February 2011; Vergelskyy v. Ukraine, no. 19312/06, 12 March 2009; Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007).