Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BAGLAY v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 22431/02

  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, 07.12.2006 - 15007/02

  IVANOV v. UKRAINE

  However, in assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account may be taken of the state of proceedings at the time (see, among other authorities, Styranowski v. Poland, no. 28616/95, § 46, ECHR 1998-VIII and Baglay v. Ukraine, no. 22431/02, § 27, 8 November 2005).

  The Court notes that the criminal proceedings against the applicant were several times terminated and resumed, which discloses a serious deficiency in the prosecution system (see, mutatis mutandis, Baglay v. Ukraine, no. 22431/02, § 31, 8 November 2005 and Stoianova and Nedelcu v. Romania, nos. 77517/01 and 77722/01, § 20, ECHR 2005-...).

• EGMR, 19.11.2009 - 27341/05

  TVERDOKHLEBOV 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; Baglay v. Ukraine, no. 22431/02, § 33, 8 November 2005 and Solaz v. Ukraine, no. 35184/02, § 43, 12 June 2008).
• EGMR, 31.01.2008 - 69435/01

  KARIMOV v. UKRAINE

  The Court notes that the civil proceedings against the applicant were suspended and resumed, due to re-opening of the criminal investigation against the applicant, which in itself discloses a serious deficiency as this re-opening occurred two and a half years after proceedings against the applicant were terminated (see, mutatis mutandis, Baglay v. Ukraine, no. 22431/02, § 31, 8 November 2005 and Stoianova and Nedelcu v. Romania, nos. 77517/01 and 77722/01, § 20, ECHR 2005-...).

 
• EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 21454/04

  MERKULOVA v. UKRAINE

  On numerous occasions the Court has found Article 6 to be applicable to civil-party claims in criminal proceedings and has examined relevant complaints on the merits (see, for example, Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, §§ 73-75, ECHR 2004-I; and mutatis mutandis, Baglay v. Ukraine, no. 22431/02, §§ 9 and 25, 8 November 2005, and Sergey Shevchenko, cited above, § 79).
• EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 26864/03

  VASHCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  The Court notes that the proceedings were terminated and resumed several times, which discloses a serious deficiency in the prosecution system (see, mutatis mutandis, Baglay v. Ukraine, no. 22431/02, § 31, 8 November 2005, and Stoianova and Nedelcu v. Romania, nos. 77517/01 and 77722/01, § 20, ECHR 2005-...).
• EGMR, 03.04.2008 - 17945/02

  N.B. 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 v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, ECHR 2000-VII, and Baglay v. Ukraine, no. 22431/02, 8 November 2005).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 14809/03

  MAZURENKO v. UKRAINE

  The Court further notes three remittals of the case for an additional investigation, which are usually ordered as a result of errors committed by investigative authorities, the repetition of such orders within one set of proceedings discloses a serious deficiency in the prosecution system (see, mutatis mutandis, Baglay v. Ukraine, no. 22431/02, § 31, 8 November 2005 and Stoianova and Nedelcu v. Romania, nos. 77517/01 and 77722/01, § 20, ECHR 2005-...).