Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KUPREYANOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 2 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 21158/05

  The Court notes that in the present case the preliminary investigation was opened on 6 August 2002 but the applicant's situation has not been affected until he was questioned for the first time in relation to the case, thus having been "charged" for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 (see Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 46, Series A no. 35; Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 19, Series A no. 7; Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 18, Series A no. 8; and Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 110, Series A no. 13).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 21158/05

  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 and the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 21158/05

  The Court notes that in the present case the preliminary investigation was opened on 6 August 2002 but the applicant's situation has not been affected until he was questioned for the first time in relation to the case, thus having been "charged" for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 (see Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 46, Series A no. 35; Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 19, Series A no. 7; Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 18, Series A no. 8; and Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 110, Series A no. 13).

• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 21158/05

  The Court notes that in the present case the preliminary investigation was opened on 6 August 2002 but the applicant's situation has not been affected until he was questioned for the first time in relation to the case, thus having been "charged" for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 (see Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 46, Series A no. 35; Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 19, Series A no. 7; Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 18, Series A no. 8; and Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 110, Series A no. 13).
• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 21158/05

  The Court notes that in the present case the preliminary investigation was opened on 6 August 2002 but the applicant's situation has not been affected until he was questioned for the first time in relation to the case, thus having been "charged" for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 (see Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 46, Series A no. 35; Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 19, Series A no. 7; Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 18, Series A no. 8; and Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 110, Series A no. 13).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 21158/05

  In view of the Court's finding above that the overall length of proceedings in the applicant's case did not exceed "reasonable time", the court concludes that he had no arguable claim to a remedy for that complaint under Article 13 (see Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 33, Series A no. 172).
• EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 55669/00

  NAKHMANOVICH v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 21158/05

  In particular, the applicant was not a minor and he was not in detention (cf. Abdoella v. the Netherlands, 25 November 1992, § 24, Series A no. 248-A; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, § 89, 2 March 2006; and Taylor v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 48864/99, 3 December 2002).
• EGMR, 03.12.2002 - 48864/99

  TAYLOR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 21158/05

  In particular, the applicant was not a minor and he was not in detention (cf. Abdoella v. the Netherlands, 25 November 1992, § 24, Series A no. 248-A; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, § 89, 2 March 2006; and Taylor v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 48864/99, 3 December 2002).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 30.06.2016 - 15327/05

  KHANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In particular, the Court notes that having regard to the overall length of the proceeding, the relevant complexity of the cases, the applicants' conduct and that of the authorities, including the diligence they displayed while dealing with the cases, and the levels of jurisdiction involved, the length of the proceedings was not excessive and met the "reasonable time" requirement (see, among other authorities, Nikitin v. Russia (dec.), no. 50178/99, ECHR 13/11/2003; Stukalova v. Russia (dec.), no. 58292/00, ECHR 19/10/2004; Zenevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 4567/02, ECHR 06/07/2006; Mironov v. Russia (dec.), no. 22625/02, ECHR 05/10/2006; Kupreyanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 21158/05, ECHR 12/02/2009; Lyakhevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 26704/02, ECHR 12/11/2013; Burmistrova v. Russia (dec.), no. 887/06, ECHR 17/02/2015).
• EGMR, 13.09.2018 - 47807/06

  SAVELYUK v. RUSSIA

  In particular, the Court notes that having regard to the overall length of the proceeding, approximately 5 years and 11 months, the relevant complexity of the case, the number of defendants involved, the special judicial status of the defendants, including the applicant, the applicant's conduct and that of the authorities, including the diligence they displayed while dealing with the case, and the levels of jurisdiction involved, the length of the proceedings was not excessive and met the "reasonable time" requirement (see, among other authorities, Nikitin v. Russia (dec.), no. 50178/99, 13 November 2003; Stukalova v. Russia (dec.), no. 58292/00, 19 October 2004; Zenevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 4567/02, 6 July 2006; Mironov v. Russia (dec.), no. 22625/02, 5 October 2006; Kupreyanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 21158/05, 12 February 2009; Lyakhevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 26704/02, 12 November 2013; and Burmistrova v. Russia (dec.), no. 887/06, 17 February 2015).
• EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 4902/08

  GORBATYKH v. RUSSIA

  In particular, the Court notes that having regard to the overall length of the proceeding, the relevant complexity of the case, the applicant's conduct and that of the authorities, including the diligence they displayed while dealing with the cases, and the levels of jurisdiction involved, the length of the proceedings was not excessive and met the "reasonable time" requirement (see, among other authorities, Nikitin v. Russia (dec.), no. 50178/99, ECHR 13/11/2003; Stukalova v. Russia (dec.), no. 58292/00, ECHR 19/10/2004; Zenevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 4567/02, ECHR 06/07/2006; Mironov v. Russia (dec.), no. 22625/02, ECHR 05/10/2006; Kupreyanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 21158/05, ECHR 12/02/2009; Lyakhevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 26704/02, ECHR 12/11/2013; Burmistrova v. Russia (dec.), no. 887/06, ECHR 17/02/2015).