Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CHUYKINA v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violations of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 28924/04
• EGMR, 14.02.2018 - 28924/04

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 28924/04

  The Court reiterates that the procedural guarantees laid down in Article 6 secure to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal; in this way Article 6 embodies the "right to a court", of which the right of access, that is the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters, constitutes one aspect (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, §§ 28-36, Series A no. 18).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 28924/04

  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, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 28924/04

  Furthermore, the domestic courts are best placed for assessing the credibility of witnesses and the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, amongst many authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 235-B, and Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B,).

• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 28924/04

  Furthermore, the domestic courts are best placed for assessing the credibility of witnesses and the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, amongst many authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 235-B, and Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B,).
• VGH der UEK, 14.11.2005 - 13/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 28924/04

  13/04/2011.
• EGMR, 25.11.2003 - 41431/98

  WIERCISZEWSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 28924/04

  Although not in a position to analyse the quality of the adjudication by the domestic courts, it considers that, since the remittal of cases for re-examination is usually ordered as a result of errors committed by lower courts, the repetition of such orders within one set of proceedings discloses a serious deficiency in the judicial system (see Wierciszewska v. Poland, no. 41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003).
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 48757/99

  SHESTAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 28924/04

  The Court notes that the judgment of 12 February 2004 was given against a private person and, therefore, the responsibility of the State extended no further than the involvement of State bodies in the enforcement proceedings (see Shestakov v. Russia (dec.), no. 48757/99, 18 June 2002).
• EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 47486/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 28924/04

  It has further noted that "to conclude otherwise would allow the State to use this avenue to avoid payment of the debts of its organs, especially taking into account that changing needs force the State to make frequent changes in its organisational structure, including by forming new organs and liquidating old ones" (Nikitina v. Russia, no. 47486/07, § 19, 15 July 2010, not final yet).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen