Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHLEBIK v. UKRAINE

  Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Fair hearing;Reasonable time) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHLEBIK v. UKRAINE - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Fair hearing;Reasonable time)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KHLEBIK v. UKRAINE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 15, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

  DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 2945/16

  The Court reiterates that while Article 6 of the Convention does not compel the Contracting States to set up courts of appeal or of cassation, a State which does institute such courts is required to ensure that persons amenable to the law shall enjoy before these courts the fundamental guarantees contained in Article 6 (see Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, § 25, Series A no. 11).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 2945/16

  The right of access to a court is not absolute but may be subject to limitations; these are permitted by implication, since the right of access, by its very nature, calls for regulation by the State - regulation which may vary in time and in place according to the needs and resources of the community and of individuals (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 57, Series A no. 93).
• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 42666/10

  HAVELKA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 2945/16

  Likewise, in view of the variety of types of proceedings, there are no absolute criteria for determining the point at which the length of proceedings becomes excessive (see Havelka v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 42666/10 and 61523/10, 20 September 2011).

 
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 2945/16

  The reasonableness of the length of proceedings is to be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, regard being had to the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, in particular the complexity of the case, the applicant's conduct and the conduct of the competent authorities (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94

  Mord an James Bulger

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 2945/16

  There is no other indication that his detention was not in conformity with the purposes of the deprivation of liberty permitted by Article 5 § 1 (a) (see, mutatis mutandis, V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 104, ECHR 1999-IX).
• EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 74820/10

  YAROSHOVETS AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 2945/16

  The Court, like the parties, finds that the relevant period of the applicant's detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (a) (see Yaroshovets and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 74820/10, 71/11, 76/11, 83/11, and 332/11, §§ 134-35, 3 December 2015).
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 2945/16

  The question before the Court is, rather, whether the respondent State has taken all the measures available to it to organise its judicial system in a way that would render the rights guaranteed by Article 6 effective in practice in this specific situation (see, for example and mutatis mutandis, Unión Alimentaria Sanders S.A. v. Spain, 7 July 1989, § 38, Series A no. 157, and Davran v. Turkey, no. 18342/03, § 45, 3 November 2009), in the light of the long-established principle that the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are practical and effective, and not theoretical and illusory (see Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37, and Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08 and 40351/09, § 272, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 50541/08

  Aufschub des Rechts auf Verteidigerbeistand (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 2945/16

  The question before the Court is, rather, whether the respondent State has taken all the measures available to it to organise its judicial system in a way that would render the rights guaranteed by Article 6 effective in practice in this specific situation (see, for example and mutatis mutandis, Unión Alimentaria Sanders S.A. v. Spain, 7 July 1989, § 38, Series A no. 157, and Davran v. Turkey, no. 18342/03, § 45, 3 November 2009), in the light of the long-established principle that the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are practical and effective, and not theoretical and illusory (see Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37, and Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08 and 40351/09, § 272, ECHR 2016).

• EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 24203/16

  PAGERIE c. FRANCE

  Si tel est le cas, elle n'aura pas à statuer sur la validité de la dérogation dont le gouvernement défendeur se prévaut (voir, mutatis mutandis, A. et autres c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 3455/05, § 161, CEDH 2009, 1rlande c. Royaume-Uni, 18 janvier 1978, § 191, série A no 25, Khlebik c. Ukraine, no 2945/16, § 82, 25 juillet 2017, et Terhe?Ÿ c. Roumanie (déc.), no 49933/20, § 46, 13 avril 2021).
• EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 40436/16

  MARMYLOVA v. UKRAINE

  However, certain cases may call for an overall assessment in this respect, without a separate examination of each of those criteria (see, for example, Maczy?„ski v. Poland, no. 43779/98, § 33, 15 January 2002, and Khlebik v. Ukraine, no. 2945/16, § 69, 25 July 2017).
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 73590/14

  TSEZAR AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  In examining this question, the Court is conscious of the context in which the case arose, notably that of the hostilities in the region, and notes that it would be artificial to examine the facts of the case without considering that general context (see Khlebik v. Ukraine, no. 2945/16, § 71, 25 July 2017, with further reference).