Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LYAKHEVICH v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 17, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 03.06.2010 - 20441/02

  LELIK v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 26704/02

  However, no proceedings were pending between 18 July 2000 and 17 January 2001, as well as between 8 February 2001 and 31 January 2002 when the case was being examined at the supervisory instance (see, among many others, Lelik v. Russia, no. 20441/02, § 39, 3 June 2010).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 26704/02

  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 (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, ECHR 1999-II, § 67).

• EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 4902/08

  GORBATYKH v. RUSSIA

  In particular, the Court notes that having regard to the overall length of the proceeding, the relevant complexity of the case, the applicant's conduct and that of the authorities, including the diligence they displayed while dealing with the cases, and the levels of jurisdiction involved, the length of the proceedings was not excessive and met the "reasonable time" requirement (see, among other authorities, Nikitin v. Russia (dec.), no. 50178/99, ECHR 13/11/2003; Stukalova v. Russia (dec.), no. 58292/00, ECHR 19/10/2004; Zenevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 4567/02, ECHR 06/07/2006; Mironov v. Russia (dec.), no. 22625/02, ECHR 05/10/2006; Kupreyanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 21158/05, ECHR 12/02/2009; Lyakhevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 26704/02, ECHR 12/11/2013; Burmistrova v. Russia (dec.), no. 887/06, ECHR 17/02/2015).
• EGMR, 30.06.2016 - 15327/05

  KHANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In particular, the Court notes that having regard to the overall length of the proceeding, the relevant complexity of the cases, the applicants" conduct and that of the authorities, including the diligence they displayed while dealing with the cases, and the levels of jurisdiction involved, the length of the proceedings was not excessive and met the "reasonable time" requirement (see, among other authorities, Nikitin v. Russia (dec.), no. 50178/99, ECHR 13/11/2003; Stukalova v. Russia (dec.), no. 58292/00, ECHR 19/10/2004; Zenevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 4567/02, ECHR 06/07/2006; Mironov v. Russia (dec.), no. 22625/02, ECHR 05/10/2006; Kupreyanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 21158/05, ECHR 12/02/2009; Lyakhevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 26704/02, ECHR 12/11/2013; Burmistrova v. Russia (dec.), no. 887/06, ECHR 17/02/2015).