Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VASHCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

  Öztürk ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 26864/03

  The Court further reiterates that the notion of a "charge", for the purposes of Article 6 § 1, may be defined as the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed an offence proscribed by a rule of a general character, which establishes a punitive and deterrent penalty for the conduct in question (see Foti and Others v. Italy, judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56, § 52, and Öztürk v. Germany, judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73, § 53).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 26864/03

  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, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 26864/03

  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, and Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).

 
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 26864/03

  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, and Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 7604/76

  FOTI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 26864/03

  The Court further reiterates that the notion of a "charge", for the purposes of Article 6 § 1, may be defined as the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed an offence proscribed by a rule of a general character, which establishes a punitive and deterrent penalty for the conduct in question (see Foti and Others v. Italy, judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56, § 52, and Öztürk v. Germany, judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73, § 53).
• KAG Münster, 28.01.2010 - 26/09

  Kostentragungspflicht des Dienstgebers für die Hinzuziehung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 26864/03

  26/09/2008.
• EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 70767/01

  PAVLYULYNETS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 26864/03

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, §§ 49-50, 6 September 2005; Karnaushenko v. Ukraine, no. 23853/02, §§ 59, 30 November 2006; Moroz and Others v. Ukraine, no. 36545/02, § 60, 21 December 2006; and Ogurtsova v. Ukraine, no. 12803/02, § 59, 1 February 2007).
• EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 54071/00

  ROKHLINA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 26864/03

  It ends with the day on which a charge is finally determined or the proceedings are discontinued (see Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, § 81, 7 April 2005, and Antonenkov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 14183/02, §§ 32-33, 22 November 2005).
• EGMR, 04.08.2005 - 77517/01

  STOIANOVA ET NEDELCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 26864/03

  The Court notes that the proceedings were terminated and resumed several times, which discloses a serious deficiency in the prosecution system (see, mutatis mutandis, Baglay v. Ukraine, no. 22431/02, § 31, 8 November 2005, and Stoianova and Nedelcu v. Romania, nos. 77517/01 and 77722/01, § 20, ECHR 2005-...).
• EGMR, 30.11.2006 - 23853/02

  KARNAUSHENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 26864/03

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, §§ 49-50, 6 September 2005; Karnaushenko v. Ukraine, no. 23853/02, §§ 59, 30 November 2006; Moroz and Others v. Ukraine, no. 36545/02, § 60, 21 December 2006; and Ogurtsova v. Ukraine, no. 12803/02, § 59, 1 February 2007).
• EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 36545/02

  MOROZ AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 14183/02

  ANTONENKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 55870/00

  EFIMENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 15007/02

  IVANOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 22431/02

  BAGLAY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 12803/02

  OGURTSOVA v. UKRAINE

• EGMR, 04.10.2012 - 34545/05

  BESTIYANETS c. UKRAINE

  The Court has held on many occasions that the Ukrainian legislation did not and does envisage an effective and accessible remedy for complaints in respect of the length of civil proceedings (see, for example, Teliga and Others v. Ukraine, no. 72551/01, § 104, 21 December 2006, and Vashchenko v. Ukraine, no. 26864/03, § 59, 26 June 2008).