Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LAZARENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms) (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (41)Zitiert selbst (14)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• KAG Aachen, 07.02.2006 - 30/05

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 70329/12

  Dnipropetrovsk Krasnogvardiyskyy District Court, 30/05/2011.
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 19.02.2005 - 12/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 70329/12

  12/04/2013.
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 04.04.2003 - 19/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 70329/12

  19/02/2013.

• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 70329/12

  The Court reiterates that the principle of equality of arms requires that each party should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his or her case under conditions that do not place him or her at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his or her opponent (see Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274, and Avotiņš v. Latvia [GC], no. 17502/07, § 119, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12952/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 70329/12

  However, the general concept of a fair trial, encompassing the fundamental principle that proceedings should be adversarial (see Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain, 23 June 1993, § 63, Series A no. 262), requires that the person against whom proceedings have been initiated should be informed of this fact (see Dilipak and Karakaya v. Turkey, nos. 7942/05 and 24838/05, § 77, 4 March 2014).
• EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 65518/01

  SALOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 70329/12

  This amounted to a breach of the principle of equality of arms (compare Beer, cited above, §§ 19-21, and Salov v. Ukraine, no. 65518/01, § 88, ECHR 2005-VIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 2430/06

  GANKIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 70329/12

  The Court has held that where domestic law provides for discretion in choosing the means of notification, it may still be incumbent on the domestic courts to ascertain that their summonses of other documents have reached the parties sufficiently in advance and, where appropriate, record their findings in the text of the judgment (see Gankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 2430/06 et al, § 36, 31 May 2016).
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 30582/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 70329/12

  It considers, however, that there is no need to rule on all of them since the complaints introduced by the fifth applicant should in any case be either declared inadmissible or struck out of the Court's list for the following reasons (see, for example, Karpyuk and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 30582/04 and 32152/04, § 160, 6 October 2015, and Apushkin v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 13465/06, 10 May 2016).
• EGMR, 05.02.2004 - 68798/01

  BOGONOS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 70329/12

  Article 6 of the Convention cannot be construed as providing for a specific form of service of court mail (see, for example, Bogonos v. Russia (dec.), no. 68798/01, 5 February 2004, and Bats v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 59927/08, § 37, 24 January 2017).
• EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16447/04

  NIKOLAY KUCHERENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 70329/12

  The Court observes that after communication the fifth applicant did not pursue his complaint concerning the alleged breach of the principle of equality of arms (compare Nikolay Kucherenko v. Ukraine, no. 16447/04, §§ 39-41, 19 February 2009, and Visloguzov v. Ukraine, no. 32362/02, §§ 98-100, 20 May 2010).
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 66941/01

  ZAGORODNIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.06.2020 - 30459/13

  GAKHARIA CONTRE LA GÉORGIE ET 1 AUTRE AFFAIRE
• EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 13465/06

  APUSHKIN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 59927/08

  BATS v. UKRAINE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.06.2019 - 74768/10

  CHERNEGA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  70329/12 and 5 others, § 40, 27 June 2017).
• EGMR, 30.04.2025 - 9627/23

  VOROSHYLO v. UKRAINE

  Rn. 7 In the leading cases of Strizhak v. Ukraine (no. 72269/01, 8 November 2005) and Lazarenko and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 70329/12 and 5 others, 27 June 2017), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

  70329/12 and 5 others,.

• EGMR, 14.11.2024 - 6057/23

  BATUROV v. UKRAINE

  Rn. 7 In the leading cases of Strizhak v. Ukraine (no. 72269/01, 8 November 2005) and Lazarenko and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 70329/12 and 5 others, 27 June 2017), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

  Ukraine, no. 72269/01, 8 November 2005), failure to notify of appeal or submissions (Lazarenko and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 70329/12 and 5 others, 27 June 2017).

• EGMR, 27.06.2019 - 3075/13

  GRYTSA AND SHADURA v. UKRAINE

  The relevant provisions of the Code concerning the procedure for serving court documents are summarised in Lazarenko and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 70329/12 and 5 others, § 15, 27 June 2017).

  The general principles concerning the principle of equality of arms can be found in Lazarenko and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 70329/12 and 5 others, §§ 36 and 37, 27 June 2017).

• EGMR, 19.10.2023 - 59487/21

  BUDVEST, TOV v. UKRAINE

  Rn. 8 In the leading case of Lazarenko and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 70329/12 and 5 others, 27 June 2017), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

  70329/12 and 5 others, 27 June 2017);.

• EGMR, 03.02.2026 - 4743/21

  Russland wegen Nawalny-Inhaftierung verurteilt: "Muster der Missachtung von …

  70329/12 and 5 others, §§ 22-25, 27 June 2017; and, compare and contrast, Sinan Işık v. Turkey, no. 21924/05, §§ 24 and 36, ECHR 2010; Štefančič v. Slovenia, no. 18027/05, § 35, 25 October 2012; Osipkovs and Others v. Latvia, no. 39210/07, § 46, 4 May 2017; Danilczuk v. Cyprus, no. 21318/12, §§ 38 and 53, 3 April 2018; and Bacaksız v. Turkey, no. 24245/09, §§ 45 and 50, 10 December 2019).
• EGMR, 24.09.2026 - 9694/19

  NOVYTSKYY v. UKRAINE

  70329/12 and 5 others, § 43, 27 June 2017), in the present case the Government provided evidence showing that on 22 February 2011 the applicant had been informed by telephone about the appeal proceedings (see paragraph 4 above).
• EGMR, 28.05.2026 - 59562/17

  BUZYNA v. UKRAINE

  70329/12 and 5 others, §§ 22-25, 27 June 2017).
• EGMR, 11.06.2024 - 33164/11

  ZELA v. ALBANIA

  The Government have not submitted any evidence, such as a delivery slip, indicating that the decision had been delivered to the applicant's lawyer, or that the delivery had at least been attempted but had not been possible owing to the wrong address (compare Mumladze v. Georgia, no. 30097/03, § 47, 8 January 2008; Rassohin v. Moldova, no. 11373/05, § 34, 18 October 2011; Lazarenko and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 70329/12 and 5 others, § 38, 27 June 2017; and Belova v. Russia, no. 33955/08, § 51, 15 September 2020).
• EGMR, 09.10.2025 - 8906/19

  RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY OF SVYATO-USPENSKY PARISH OF RIVNE EPARCHY OF UKRAINIAN …

  Even assuming that these new complaints are not "substantially the same" as those previously declared inadmissible (see paragraph 39 above and compare Lazarenko and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 70329/12 and 5 others, § 26, 27 June 2017) and notwithstanding the question whether domestic remedies could be considered exhausted (see paragraph 32 above), these complaints were submitted outside of the time-limit set in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 16.01.2025 - 15830/16

  TVERDOKHLEBOVA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 16.01.2020 - 39071/08

  STRYZH v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 07.02.2019 - 19086/12

  MINAK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 1292/14

  ISAYEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 08.11.2018 - 63510/11

  PECHENIZKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 08.11.2018 - 29446/12

  SOZONOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 15.05.2025 - 48433/15

  POZHARSKA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 36124/13

  KOTLYAR v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 22.09.2022 - 30854/09

  SHEVCHUK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 15.04.2021 - 18202/20

  KAYDALOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 42991/13

  BOLYUKH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 27358/16 (anhängig)

  CHEREDNICHENKO v. UKRAINE and 3 other applications
• EGMR, 09.10.2025 - 12869/21

  UKRSPETSMET-V, TOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 30.04.2025 - 77302/16

  VASYLKIV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 28.03.2024 - 5800/22

  DIDENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 26.01.2023 - 41881/18

  VOYTSEKHOVSKYY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 18.02.2021 - 18015/19

  GROS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 18.02.2021 - 73193/12

  SYDORENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 37666/13

  KHARCHENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 20.12.2018 - 36245/12

  BILA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 42981/19 (anhängig)

  YEVTUSHENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 36666/19 (anhängig)

  SLOBODYANYUK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 24.10.2024 - 17019/15

  SHEMET v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 17.10.2024 - 71511/16

  ODINOKOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 26.03.2019 - 64766/12

  YEREMEYEV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 26.03.2019 - 13249/11

  VIDANOV v. UKRAINE and 3 other applications
• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 59937/08

  TIKHAK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 18656/13

  VIKTOR NAZARENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 50704/15

  YAKOVLYEVA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 04.06.2020 - 15517/19

  ALEKSEYEV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 10.12.2019 - 21971/10

  SALOGUB v. UKRAINE