Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KADZANAIA v. GEORGIA

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KADZANAIA v. GEORGIA

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 41720/13

  NICOLAE VIRGILIU TANASE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2024 - 27178/21

  Article 6 § 1 under its civil head therefore applied to the criminal proceedings joined by the applicant (see, Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, § 207, 25 June 2019, with further references).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2024 - 27178/21

  Rn. 14 The general principles concerning the length of proceedings have been summarised in Frydlender v. France ([GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII), and Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal ([GC], no. 35382/97, § 19, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 15016/07

  SCHRADE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2024 - 27178/21

  As for the possibility of instituting disciplinary proceedings against the judiciary, the Court has already found that the disciplinary proceedings suggested by the Government is not an effective remedy (see Schrade v. Georgia [Committee], no. 15016/07, § 42, 11 March 2021).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.02.2025 - 45681/22

  ZAALISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  In the absence of effective domestic remedies (see, for illustrative purposes, Schrade v. Georgia [Committee], no. 15016/07, §§ 41-42, 11 March 2021; Kadzanaia v. Georgia [Committee], no. 27178/21, §§ 9-12, 21 March 2024; Mgeladze v. Georgia [Committee], no. 35413/19, §§ 8-10, 16 May 2024; and I.B. v. Georgia [Committee], 4639/23, §§ 18-19, 11 July 2024) and while noting that the applicant does not appear to have had enquired, at least in written form, about the progress of the cassation proceedings for over five years, the Court sees no grounds on which to absolve the State of its responsibility for the stagnation of the proceedings before the Supreme Court.