Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KUZIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 9, Art. 10, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (length of proceedings) Violation of Art. 13 Inadmissible under Art. 6 and 13 (remainder) and Art. 9 and 10 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - ...

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Zitiert selbst (1)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 22118/02

     35.  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 criteria established by its case-law, particularly the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of 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).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.06.2017 - 53084/99

  KORMACHEVA ET 105 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA RUSSIE

  22118/02.

  22118/02.

• EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 25270/06

  [ENG]

  The Court reiterates that according to its case-law there was at the material time no effective remedy under Russian law capable of affording redress for the unreasonable length of civil proceedings (see, among many other authorities, Kormacheva, cited above, §§ 61-62; Kuzin v. Russia, no. 22118/02, §§ 42-46, 9 June 2005; Bakiyevets v. Russia, no. 22892/03, § 53, 15 June 2006; Markova v. Russia, no. 13119/03, § 31, 8 January 2009; and Zaytsev and Others v. Russia, no. 42046/06, § 48, 25 June 2009).
• EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 1603/02

  BROVCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Nor did the Government supply any example from domestic practice showing that, by using the means in question, it was possible for the applicant to obtain such relief (see Kudla, cited above, § 159; Kormacheva, §§ 61 and 62, 29 January 2004; and Kuzin v. Russia, no. 22118/02, §§ 42-46, 9 June 2005).

• EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 16583/04

  GRIBANENKOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court further observes that according to its case-law there is no effective remedy under Russian law capable of affording redress for the unreasonable length of civil proceedings (see, among many other authorities, Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, §§ 61-62, 29 January 2004; Kuzin v. Russia, no. 22118/02, §§ 42-46, 9 June 2005; Bakiyevets v. Russia, no. 22892/03, § 53, 15 June 2006; Markova v. Russia, no. 13119/03, § 31, 8 January 2009; and Zaytsev and Others v. Russia, no. 42046/06, § 48, 25 June 2009).
• EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 24564/04

  MESHCHERYAKOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that according to its previous findings, at the time when the applicant brought his application to Strasbourg there was no effective remedy under Russian law capable of affording redress for the unreasonable length of civil proceedings (see, among many other authorities, Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, § 61-62, 29 January 2004; Kuzin v. Russia, no. 22118/02, §§ 42-46, 9 June 2005; Bakiyevets v. Russia, no. 22892/03, § 53, 15 June 2006; Markova v. Russia, no. 13119/03, § 31, 8 January 2009; and Zaytsev and Others v. Russia, no. 42046/06, § 48, 25 June 2009).
• EGMR, 14.06.2018 - 18849/04

  DOMBROVSKAYA AND PROKHOROV v. RUSSIA

  Having examined all the material submitted to it, as well as the Government's objection pertaining to the applicants' failure to exhaust domestic remedies, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility (see, among many other authorities, Kormacheva, cited above, §§ 61-62; Kuzin v. Russia, no. 22118/02, §§ 42-46, 9 June 2005; Bakiyevets v. Russia, no. 22892/03, § 53, 15 June 2006; Markova v. Russia, no. 13119/03, § 31, 8 January 2009; and Zaytsev and Others v. Russia, no. 42046/06, § 48, 25 June 2009, dealing with the lack of remedies in Russian law, at the time, capable of affording redress for the unreasonable length of civil proceedings) and merits of these complaints.
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13119/03

  MARKOVA v. RUSSIA

  It notes that the Government did not indicate any remedy that could have expedited the determination of the applicant's case or provided her with adequate redress for the delays that had already occurred (see Kudla, cited above, § 159; Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, §§ 61-62, 29 January 2004; and Kuzin v. Russia, no. 22118/02, §§ 42-46, 9 June 2005).
• EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 50537/06

  [ENG]

  The Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Article 6 of the Convention as regards the guarantees of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Kuzin v. Russia, no. 22118/02, §§ 33-39, 9 June 2005, and Svetlana Orlova v. Russia, no. 4487/04, §§ 42-52, 30 July 2009).
• EGMR, 06.05.2010 - 21670/07

  [ENG]

  The Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Article 6 of the Convention as regards the guarantees of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Kuzin v. Russia, no. 22118/02, §§ 33-39, 9 June 2005 and Svetlana Orlova v. Russia, no. 4487/04, §§ 42-52, 30 July 2009).
• EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 76964/01

  KIRSANOVA v. RUSSIA

  Nor did the Government supply any example from domestic practice showing that, by using the means in question, it was possible for the applicant to obtain such a relief (see Kudla, cited above, § 159, Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, §§ 61-62, 29 January 2004 and Kuzin v. Russia, no. 22118/02, §§ 42-46, 9 June 2005).
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 12049/02

  KUTSENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.06.2010 - 20441/02

  LELIK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 77089/01

  OLSHANNIKOVA v. RUSSIA