Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LYAKHEVICH v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 17, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 26704/02

  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 (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, ECHR 1999-II, § 67).
• EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 39654/07

  PODRUGINA AND YEDINOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 26704/02

  The Court considers that such a redress was sufficient and adequate, having the effect of rendering the applicant "no longer a victim" of the alleged violation (see, mutatis mutandis, Babunidze, cited above, with further references, and Podrugina and Yedinov v. Russia (dec.), no. 39654/07, 17 February 2009).
• EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 42538/02

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 26704/02

  First, the Court finds it important to note that the applicant has never complied with the decision of 8 February 2001 (see, by contrast, Kazmin v. Russia, no. 42538/02, §§ 63, 13 January 2011).

• EGMR, 03.06.2010 - 20441/02

  LELIK v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 26704/02

  However, no proceedings were pending between 18 July 2000 and 17 January 2001, as well as between 8 February 2001 and 31 January 2002 when the case was being examined at the supervisory instance (see, among many others, Lelik v. Russia, no. 20441/02, § 39, 3 June 2010).
• EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 14330/07

  BELKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 26704/02

  14330/07 et al., 5 February 2009), the Court considers that this period complied with the requirements of the Convention.
• EGMR, 15.05.2007 - 3040/03

  BABUNIDZE v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 26704/02

  Following the Supreme Court's ruling of 31 January 2002, the applicant was afforded redress in the form of a re-trial (see, for similar approach, Fedosov v. Russia (dec.), no. 42237/02, 5 January 2007; Nikishina v. Russia (dec.), no. 45665/99, 12 September 2000; and Babunidze v. Russia (dec.), no. 3040/03, 15 May 2007).
• EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 42237/02

  FEDOSOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 26704/02

  Following the Supreme Court's ruling of 31 January 2002, the applicant was afforded redress in the form of a re-trial (see, for similar approach, Fedosov v. Russia (dec.), no. 42237/02, 5 January 2007; Nikishina v. Russia (dec.), no. 45665/99, 12 September 2000; and Babunidze v. Russia (dec.), no. 3040/03, 15 May 2007).
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 72776/01

  BRATYAKIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 26704/02

  Therefore the Court does not consider that the decision of the Presidium of the Supreme Court to remit the case undermined the overall fairness of the proceedings within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention (see, for similar reasoning, Bratyakin v. Russia (dec.), no. 72776/01, 14 April 2001).
• EGMR, 12.09.2000 - 45665/99

  NIKISHINA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 26704/02

  Following the Supreme Court's ruling of 31 January 2002, the applicant was afforded redress in the form of a re-trial (see, for similar approach, Fedosov v. Russia (dec.), no. 42237/02, 5 January 2007; Nikishina v. Russia (dec.), no. 45665/99, 12 September 2000; and Babunidze v. Russia (dec.), no. 3040/03, 15 May 2007).

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, 18.09.2018 - 26668/09

  NOSOV v. RUSSIA

  Accordingly, the effect of the proceedings which formed the basis for the applicants' complaints under Articles 8 and 12 of the Convention has thus been annulled (compare, (see Lyakhevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 26704/02, 12 November 2013).
• 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, 04.09.2018 - 50766/14

  LYUBOMUDROVA AND VORONINA v. RUSSIA

  The effect of the proceedings which formed the basis for the applicants' complaints under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention has thus been annulled (compare, (see Lyakhevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 26704/02, 12 November 2013).
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 2746/07

  PROKOPENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court thus considers that such a redress was sufficient and adequate, having the effect of rendering the applicant "no longer a victim" of the alleged violation (see, mutatis mutandis, Babunidze, cited above, and most recent Lyakhevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 26704/02, 12 November 2013).
• 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).
• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 78544/13

  VARIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 8 other applications

  The effect of the proceedings which formed the basis for the applicant's complaints under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 has thus been annulled (compare, (see Lyakhevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 26704/02, 12 November 2013).
• EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 58647/14

  LOGINOV v. RUSSIA

  The effect of the proceedings which formed the basis for the applicant's complaints under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 has thus been annulled (compare, (see Lyakhevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 26704/02, 12 November 2013).