Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GRABCHUK v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 6-2 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 8599/02
• EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 8599/02

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

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 8599/02

  The Court has examined this complaint as it has been submitted and finds that it is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4. The Court recalls that Article 13 cannot be read as requiring the provision of an effective remedy that would enable the individual to complain about the absence in domestic law of access to a court as secured by Article 6 § 1 (Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 151, ECHR 2000-XI), which is the substance of the applicant's complaint under Article 13.
• EGMR, 28.04.2005 - 72758/01

  Unschuldsvermutung (Entschädigungsansprüche; konkludente Schuldfeststellung bei …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 8599/02

  It suffices, even in the absence of any formal finding, that there is some reasoning to suggest that the official regards that person as guilty (see Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, § 41, ECHR 2000-X; A.L. v. Germany, no. 72758/01, § 31, 28 April 2005).
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 8599/02

  The Court reiterates that the Convention must be interpreted in such a way as to guarantee rights that are practical and effective as opposed to theoretical and illusory (e.g., Multiplex v. Croatia, no. 58112/00, § 44, 10 July 2003); that also applies to the right enshrined in Article 6 § 2 (see Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, § 35).
• EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13126/87

  SEKANINA c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 8599/02

  The scope of Article 6 § 2 is moreover not limited to pending criminal proceedings but extends to judicial decisions taken after a prosecution has been discontinued (see Nölkenbockhoff, cited above, § 37; and Capeau, cited above, § 25) or after an acquittal (see, in particular, Sekanina v. Austria, judgment of 25 August 1993, § 30, Series A no. 266-A; and O. v. Norway, no. 29327/98, ECHR 2003-II).

• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 53172/10

  LÄHTEENMÄKI v. ESTONIA

  It is because of this and the circumstances referred to in paragraphs 47 to 49 above that the present case differs from cases where the subsequent proceedings followed on from a discontinuance of criminal proceedings because of insufficient evidence (Capeau v. Belgium, no. 42914/98, ECHR 2005-I) or because of want of proof and the prosecution having been time-barred (Grabchuk v. Ukraine, no. 8599/02, 21 September 2006).