Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DAVTYAN v. ARMENIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 7, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 29736/06
• EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 29736/06
• EGMR, 14.03.2019 - 29736/06

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 29736/06

  On the latter point, what is at stake for the applicant has also to be taken into consideration (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 124, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 07.06.2001 - 64666/01

  PAPON v. FRANCE (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 29736/06

  Where an applicant complains of a continuing situation, the six month period set by Article 35 § 1 begins when the situation ends (see, among other authorities, Papon v. France (no. 1) (dec.), no. 64666/01, ECHR 2001-VI).
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 29736/06

  The Court reiterates that it may only examine complaints in respect of which domestic remedies have been exhausted (see, among other authorities, Valasinas v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 44558/98, 14 March 2000).

 
• EGMR, 28.04.2004 - 56679/00

  AZINAS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 29736/06

  Furthermore, the exhaustion rule requires that the complaints intended to be made at the international level should first be aired in substance before the domestic courts (see Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III).
• EGMR, 03.02.2005 - 19247/02

  FEHR v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 29736/06

  It is the role of the domestic courts to interpret and apply the relevant rules of procedural or substantive law (see, among other authorities, Fehr v. Austria, no. 19247/02, § 32, 3 February 2005).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 29736/06

  In this respect, the Court observes that the applicant's detention period within the meaning of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 terminated with his conviction at first instance on 14 November 2005 and thereafter his detention was covered by Article 5 § 1 (a) (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 9, Series A no. 7).
• EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 8304/78

  CORIGLIANO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 29736/06

  (a) As regards the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, the Court reiterates that in criminal matters in order to assess whether the "reasonable time" requirement contained in Article 6 § 1 has been complied with, one must begin by ascertaining from which moment the person was "charged"; this may have occurred on a date prior to the case coming before the trial court, such as the date of arrest, the date when the person concerned was officially notified that he would be prosecuted or the date when the preliminary investigations were opened (see, among other authorities, Corigliano v. Italy, 10 December 1982, § 34, Series A no. 57).
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 29736/06

  When doing so, the test is whether the applicant is "substantially affected" by the steps taken against him (see Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, §§ 42, 44 and 46, Series A no. 35).