Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BAKIYEVETS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (length) Violation of Art. 13 Remainder inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 22892/03

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 22892/03

  The applicant's right to repayment of the value of her share derived from her ownership of the share in the company concerned and is without doubt a "civil right" (cf. Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, § 192).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 22892/03

  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, 07.07.1989 - 10873/84

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 22892/03

  Bearing these circumstances in mind, the Court considers that the applicant could maintain, on arguable grounds, that the company should still continue to operate and should have still been able to repay her the value of her share, so that there was a genuine and serious dispute over the existence of that right (see, mutatis mutandis, Pudas v. Sweden, judgment of 27 October 1987, Series A no. 125-A, pp. 14-15, §§ 31-34; Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159, pp. 17-18, §§ 37-40; Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, § 87, ECHR 2005).
• BPatG, 17.11.2011 - 3 ZA (pat) 54/11

  Patentnichtigkeitsklageverfahren - mehrere Gerichtsgebühren bei nachträglicher …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 22892/03

  15/09/2006.
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 14570/89

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 22892/03

  The dispute must be genuine and serious; it may relate not only to the existence of a right but also to its scope and manner of its exercise; and, finally, the outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question (see Baraona v. Portugal, judgment of 8 July 1987, Series A no. 122, p. 17-18, § 42; and Procola v. Luxembourg, judgment of 28 September 1995, Series A no. 326, § 39).
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 22892/03

  As to the Government's argument that the applicant contributed to the delay in the proceedings by amending her claims and filing motions, the Court reiterates that the applicant cannot be blamed for taking full advantage of the resources afforded by national law in the defence of her interest (see, mutatis mutandis, YaÄŸcı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 66).
• EGMR, 25.11.1993 - 14282/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 22892/03

  According to the principles laid down in its case-law (see Zander v. Sweden, judgment of 25 November 1993, Series A no. 279-B, p. 38, § 22, and Acquaviva v. France, judgment of 21 November 1995, Series A no. 333-A, § 46), in order to determine whether Article 6 § 1 applied to that period of the proceedings, the Court must ascertain whether there was a dispute over a "right" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law.
• EGMR, 27.10.1987 - 10426/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 22892/03

  Bearing these circumstances in mind, the Court considers that the applicant could maintain, on arguable grounds, that the company should still continue to operate and should have still been able to repay her the value of her share, so that there was a genuine and serious dispute over the existence of that right (see, mutatis mutandis, Pudas v. Sweden, judgment of 27 October 1987, Series A no. 125-A, pp. 14-15, §§ 31-34; Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159, pp. 17-18, §§ 37-40; Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, § 87, ECHR 2005).
• EGMR, 24.11.1994 - 15287/89

  BEAUMARTIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 22892/03

  In this respect the Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable where an action is "pecuniary" in nature and is founded on an alleged infringement of rights which are likewise pecuniary rights, notwithstanding the origin of the dispute (see, for example, Beaumartin v. France, judgment of 24 November 1994, Series A no. 296-B, p. 60-61, § 28).
• EGMR, 07.06.2017 - 53084/99

  KORMACHEVA ET 105 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA RUSSIE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.06.2017 - 53084/99

  KORMACHEVA ET 105 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA RUSSIE

  22892/03.

  22892/03.

• 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, 07.03.2017 - 60702/11

  DOMIRA, SPOL. S R.O. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  The Court considers that the applicants, in substance, complain that they had no effective remedy at their disposal in respect of the length of the main proceedings and therefore their complaint falls to be examined under Article 13 of the Convention (see Bakiyevets v. Russia, no. 22892/03, § 50, 15 June 2006, and Golha v. the Czech Republic, no. 7051/06, § 64 and 72, 26 May 2011).

• 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, 10.12.2020 - 48398/17

  PARINOV v. UKRAINE

  As to the Government's arguments that the applicant contributed to the delay in the proceedings in November 2013 by challenging two procedural decisions before the Court of Cassation, the Court takes the view that the applicant cannot be blamed for taking full advantage of the resources afforded by national law in the defence of his interest (see Bakiyevets v. Russia, no. 22892/03, § 47, 15 June 2006).
• 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, 24.07.2007 - 11529/04

  BASKIENE v. LITHUANIA

  It is also well-established in the Court's case-law that proceedings relating to the reimbursement of the value of shares fall within the civil limb of Article 6 § 1 (see, e.g., Bakiyevets v. Russia, no. 22892/03, 15 June 2006).
• EGMR, 03.06.2010 - 20441/02

  LELIK v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates 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, 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).