Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 01.07.2021 - 15360/10   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2021,19252
EGMR, 01.07.2021 - 15360/10 (https://dejure.org/2021,19252)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01.07.2021 - 15360/10 (https://dejure.org/2021,19252)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01. Juli 2021 - 15360/10 (https://dejure.org/2021,19252)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2021,19252) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    NECHAY v. UKRAINE

    Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective ...

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (37)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

  • EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

    PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2021 - 15360/10
    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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Merit v. Ukraine, (no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004).
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2021 - 15360/10
    It ceases to apply on the day when a charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance, as from that day on a person is detained "after conviction by a competent court" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a) (see, among many other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

    FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2021 - 15360/10
    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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Merit v. Ukraine, (no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004).
     
  • EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

    BAUMANN v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2021 - 15360/10
    In that regard, the Court reiterates that the question of whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is normally determined by reference to the date when the application was lodged with the Court (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001 V (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

    CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2021 - 15360/10
    The rule is subject to exceptions which may be justified by compelling reasons deriving from the specific circumstances and the context in which a remedy becomes available to an applicant, such as the context of new remedies in length-of-proceedings cases (see, for example, Brusco v. Italy, (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002 VIII; and Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, § 35, ECHR 2005 V).
  • EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

    BRUSCO v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2021 - 15360/10
    The rule is subject to exceptions which may be justified by compelling reasons deriving from the specific circumstances and the context in which a remedy becomes available to an applicant, such as the context of new remedies in length-of-proceedings cases (see, for example, Brusco v. Italy, (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002 VIII; and Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, § 35, ECHR 2005 V).
  • EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01

    NOGOLICA c. CROATIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2021 - 15360/10
    The rule is subject to exceptions which may be justified by compelling reasons deriving from the specific circumstances and the context in which a remedy becomes available to an applicant, such as the context of new remedies in length-of-proceedings cases (see, for example, Brusco v. Italy, (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002 VIII; and Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, § 35, ECHR 2005 V).
  • EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 66561/01

    MERIT v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2021 - 15360/10
    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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Merit v. Ukraine, (no. 66561/01, 30 March 2004).
  • EGMR, 30.11.2023 - 36496/21

    BABKIN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    1 level of jurisdiction (Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021);.

    6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - from 14/12/2017 - pending; 1 level of jurisdiction (Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021);.

    15360/10, §§ 67-79,.

    1 level of jurisdiction (Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021);.

    1 level of jurisdiction (Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021);.

    1 level of jurisdiction (Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79,.

    1 level of jurisdiction (Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79,.

  • EGMR, 19.10.2023 - 38260/21

    KOZAK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    1 level of jurisdiction (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10,.

    2 levels of jurisdiction (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10,.

    13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings - (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021),.

    2 level of jurisdiction (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021),.

    13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings - (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021),.

    2 levels of jurisdiction (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021),.

    13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings - (see Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, §§ 67-79, 1 July 2021).

  • EGMR, 25.04.2024 - 22896/22

    CHUPRYNA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    15360/10, §§ 67-79,.

    15360/10, §§ 67-79,.

    15360/10, §§ 67-79,.

    15360/10, §§ 67-79,.

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht