Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YAKYMENKO v. UKRAINE

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 19142/03

  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).
• EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 70767/01

  PAVLYULYNETS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 19142/03

  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 e.g. Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, §§ 49-50, 6 September 2005; Moroz and Others v. Ukraine, no. 36545/02, § 60, 21 December 2006; and Golovko v. Ukraine, no. 39161/02, § 50, 1 February 2007).
• EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 36545/02

  MOROZ AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 19142/03

  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 e.g. Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, §§ 49-50, 6 September 2005; Moroz and Others v. Ukraine, no. 36545/02, § 60, 21 December 2006; and Golovko v. Ukraine, no. 39161/02, § 50, 1 February 2007).
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 39161/02

  GOLOVKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 19142/03

  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 e.g. Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, §§ 49-50, 6 September 2005; Moroz and Others v. Ukraine, no. 36545/02, § 60, 21 December 2006; and Golovko v. Ukraine, no. 39161/02, § 50, 1 February 2007).
• EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 28746/03

  VYROVYY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 19142/03

  The Court further finds that the period between the taking of the final judgment on 19 September 1997 and its quashing on 6 April 1998 should not be excluded from calculation, as during this period the authorities were refusing to issue the applicant with the writ of enforcement referring to some official investigation into the case by the Department of Justice (see, mutatis mutandis, Vyrovyy v. Ukraine, no. 28746/03, § 36, 12 July 2007).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 03.10.2018 - 10347/07

  STARYGIN AGAINST UKRAINE AND 170 OTHER CASES

  19142/03.
• EGMR, 16.04.2009 - 21979/04

  PYSATYUK v. UKRAINE

  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, for example, Yakymenko v. Ukraine, no. 19142/03, § 39, 29 May 2008; Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, § 53, 6 September 2005; and Golovko v. Ukraine, cited above, § 65).
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 32038/04

  LYUTOV v. UKRAINE

  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, for example, Yakymenko v. Ukraine, no. 19142/03, §§ 32-39, 29 May 2008; Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, §§ 49-50, 6 September 2005, and Golovko v. Ukraine, no. 39161/02, § 50, 1 February 2007).

• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 1409/03

  SMIRNOV v. UKRAINE

  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 Frydlender, cited above; Yakymenko v. Ukraine, no. 19142/03, § 39, 29 May 2008; and Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, § 53, 6 September 2005).
• EGMR, 18.06.2009 - 9025/03

  PILIPEY v. UKRAINE

  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, for example, Yakymenko v. Ukraine, no. 19142/03, § 39, 29 May 2008; Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, § 53, 6 September 2005; and Loshenko v. Ukraine, no. 11447/04, § 40, 11 December 2008).
• EGMR, 18.06.2009 - 37500/04

  BUBLYK v. UKRAINE

  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, for example, Yakymenko v. Ukraine, no. 19142/03, § 39, 29 May 2008; Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, § 53, 6 September 2005; and Golovko v. Ukraine, no. 39161/02, § 65, 1 February 2007).
• EGMR, 16.04.2009 - 12470/04

  POPILIN v. UKRAINE

  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, for example, Yakymenko v. Ukraine, no. 19142/03, § 39, 29 May 2008; Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, § 53, 6 September 2005; and Golovko, cited above, § 65).
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 10398/04

  GOGIN v. UKRAINE

  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, for example, Yakymenko v. Ukraine, no. 19142/03, §§ 32-39, 29 May 2008; Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, §§ 46-53, 6 September 2005; and Golovko v. Ukraine, no. 39161/02, § 61-65, 1 February 2007).