Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BAKIYEVETS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (length) Violation of Art. 13 Remainder inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 22892/03

  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, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

  LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 22892/03

  The applicant's right to repayment of the value of her share derived from her ownership of the share in the company concerned and is without doubt a "civil right" (cf. Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, § 192).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 22892/03

  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, 07.07.1989 - 10873/84

  TRE TRAKTÖRER AKTIEBOLAG v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 22892/03

  Bearing these circumstances in mind, the Court considers that the applicant could maintain, on arguable grounds, that the company should still continue to operate and should have still been able to repay her the value of her share, so that there was a genuine and serious dispute over the existence of that right (see, mutatis mutandis, Pudas v. Sweden, judgment of 27 October 1987, Series A no. 125-A, pp. 14-15, §§ 31-34; Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159, pp. 17-18, §§ 37-40; Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, § 87, ECHR 2005).
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 14570/89

  PROCOLA c. LUXEMBOURG

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 22892/03

  The dispute must be genuine and serious; it may relate not only to the existence of a right but also to its scope and manner of its exercise; and, finally, the outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question (see Baraona v. Portugal, judgment of 8 July 1987, Series A no. 122, p. 17-18, § 42; and Procola v. Luxembourg, judgment of 28 September 1995, Series A no. 326, § 39).
• EGMR, 25.11.1993 - 14282/88

  ZANDER v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 22892/03

  According to the principles laid down in its case-law (see Zander v. Sweden, judgment of 25 November 1993, Series A no. 279-B, p. 38, § 22, and Acquaviva v. France, judgment of 21 November 1995, Series A no. 333-A, § 46), in order to determine whether Article 6 § 1 applied to that period of the proceedings, the Court must ascertain whether there was a dispute over a "right" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law.
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 22892/03

  As to the Government's argument that the applicant contributed to the delay in the proceedings by amending her claims and filing motions, the Court reiterates that the applicant cannot be blamed for taking full advantage of the resources afforded by national law in the defence of her interest (see, mutatis mutandis, YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 66).
• EGMR, 27.10.1987 - 10426/83

  PUDAS c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 22892/03

  Bearing these circumstances in mind, the Court considers that the applicant could maintain, on arguable grounds, that the company should still continue to operate and should have still been able to repay her the value of her share, so that there was a genuine and serious dispute over the existence of that right (see, mutatis mutandis, Pudas v. Sweden, judgment of 27 October 1987, Series A no. 125-A, pp. 14-15, §§ 31-34; Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159, pp. 17-18, §§ 37-40; Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, § 87, ECHR 2005).
• EGMR, 24.11.1994 - 15287/89

  BEAUMARTIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 22892/03

  In this respect the Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable where an action is "pecuniary" in nature and is founded on an alleged infringement of rights which are likewise pecuniary rights, notwithstanding the origin of the dispute (see, for example, Beaumartin v. France, judgment of 24 November 1994, Series A no. 296-B, p. 60-61, § 28).
• EGMR, 07.06.2017 - 53084/99

  KORMACHEVA ET 105 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 22892/03

  It notes that the Government did not indicate any remedy that could have expedited the determination of the applicant's case or provided him with adequate redress for delays that had already occurred (see Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, 29 January 2004, § 64).