Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YURTAYEV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (length) Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 31.01.2006 - 11336/02
• EGMR, 03.10.2018 - 11336/02

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2006 - 11336/02

  In this connection it recalls that throughout the period under consideration the applicant was kept in custody - a fact which required particular diligence on the part of the courts dealing with the case to administer justice expeditiously (Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 83, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); Abdoella v. the Netherlands, judgment of 25 November 1992, Series A no. 248-A, § 24, and Henworth v. the United Kingdom, no. 515/02, § 29, 2 November 2004).
• EGMR, 16.12.2003 - 48843/99

  COOPER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2006 - 11336/02

  As regards the objective test, it considers that it must be examined together with the "independence" issue as these two concepts are closely linked (Cooper v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48843/99, § 104, ECHR 2003-XII).

• EGMR, 10.11.2011 - 31467/06

  KAYUDA v. UKRAINE

  Special diligence to administer justice expeditiously is required from the domestic courts when the applicant is held in custody during the proceedings (see, for instance, Yurtayev v. Ukraine, no. 11336/02, § 37, 31 January 2006).
• EGMR, 06.10.2011 - 32241/07

  KYRYLYUK v. UKRAINE

  Special diligence to administer justice expeditiously is required from the domestic courts when the applicant is held in custody during the proceedings (see, for instance, Yurtayev v. Ukraine, no. 11336/02, § 37, 31 January 2006).