Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KRUK v. RUSSIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 942/02

  ZEMENTOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 44432/06

  Whereas the Court has consistently held that an award of compensation in the "rehabilitation" proceedings cannot deprive the applicant of his status as a "victim" of violations of Article 5 of the Convention (see Pushchelenko and Others v. Russia, no. 45392/11 et al., § 27, 12 March 2015, and Shalya v. Russia, no. 27335/13, § 9, 13 November 2014), it dispensed with ruling whether or not that procedure constituted an effective remedy for a grievance under Article 6 § 1 about an excessive length of criminal proceedings (see Zementova v. Russia, no. 942/02, § 61, 27 September 2007).
• EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 27335/13

  SHALYA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 44432/06

  Whereas the Court has consistently held that an award of compensation in the "rehabilitation" proceedings cannot deprive the applicant of his status as a "victim" of violations of Article 5 of the Convention (see Pushchelenko and Others v. Russia, no. 45392/11 et al., § 27, 12 March 2015, and Shalya v. Russia, no. 27335/13, § 9, 13 November 2014), it dispensed with ruling whether or not that procedure constituted an effective remedy for a grievance under Article 6 § 1 about an excessive length of criminal proceedings (see Zementova v. Russia, no. 942/02, § 61, 27 September 2007).
• EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 45392/11

  PUSHCHELENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 44432/06

  Whereas the Court has consistently held that an award of compensation in the "rehabilitation" proceedings cannot deprive the applicant of his status as a "victim" of violations of Article 5 of the Convention (see Pushchelenko and Others v. Russia, no. 45392/11 et al., § 27, 12 March 2015, and Shalya v. Russia, no. 27335/13, § 9, 13 November 2014), it dispensed with ruling whether or not that procedure constituted an effective remedy for a grievance under Article 6 § 1 about an excessive length of criminal proceedings (see Zementova v. Russia, no. 942/02, § 61, 27 September 2007).
• EGMR, 30.06.2016 - 15327/05

  KHANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 44432/06

  However, the Court has recently found that three applicants lost their status as "victims" of the alleged violation of their right to a trial within a reasonable time after the domestic courts had awarded them sums of money in the "rehabilitation" proceedings, taking into account in particular the duration of the criminal proceedings (see Khanov and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 15327/05 et al., 30 June 2016).

• EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 34104/08

  ULANOV AND LI v. RUSSIA

  The Court therefore upholds the Government's objection and rejects this complaint by the applicant under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see, for similar reasoning, Kruk v. Russia (dec.), no. 44432/06, 20 September 2016).