Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 22431/02   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2005,64270
EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 22431/02 (https://dejure.org/2005,64270)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08.11.2005 - 22431/02 (https://dejure.org/2005,64270)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08. November 2005 - 22431/02 (https://dejure.org/2005,64270)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,64270) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

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)

 
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 ... (12)

  • 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, 26.02.2015 - 71660/11

    BARYSHEVSKYY 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 Baglay v. Ukraine, no. 22431/02, § 31, 8 November 2005; Vergelskyy v. Ukraine, no. 19312/06, §§ 115 and 119, 12 March 2009; Kiryakov v. Ukraine, no. 26124/03, §§ 62 and 64, 12 January 2012; Osakovskiy v. Ukraine, no. 13406/06, § 103, 17 July 2014).
  • 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, 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-...).
  • 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, 20.09.2007 - 15002/02

    SERDYUK v. UKRAINE

    There is no evidence that a criminal investigation into the events was necessary to enable the applicant to lodge a civil complaint or, for that matter, that he attempted to lodge a claim for damage within the framework of the criminal investigation (see, a contrario, Baglay v. Ukraine, no. 22431/02, §§ 9 and 27, 8 November 2005).
  • EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 39855/04

    UDOVIK 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 instance, Baglay v. Ukraine, no. 22431/02, § 33, 8 November 2005, and N.B. v. Ukraine, cited above, § 43).
  • EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 1661/04

    BENDRYT v. UKRAINE

    The Court finds that the proceedings at issue fall within the ambit of Article 6 of the Convention (see Baglay v. Ukraine, no. 22431/02, § 25, 8 November 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, 31.01.2008 - 69435/01

    KARIMOV v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 31580/03

    SAFYANNIKOVA v. UKRAINE

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht