Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MARCHENKO v. RUSSIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 29510/04

  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, 22.09.2005 - 3734/02

  SOKOLOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 29510/04

  The Court reiterates that the applicant cannot be blamed for taking full advantage of the resources afforded by national law in the defence of his interests (see Sokolov v. Russia, no. 3734/02, § 38, 22 September 2005).
• EGMR, 03.11.2005 - 38020/03

  ANTONOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 29510/04

  The Court reiterates that the principal responsibility for a delay caused by expert examinations rests ultimately with the State (see Capuano v. Italy, judgment of 25 June 1987, Series A no. 119, § 32, and Antonov v. Russia (dec.), no. 38020/03, 3 November 2005).
• EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 30546/96

  LOFFLER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 29510/04

  In this respect, the Court notes that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention imposes on Contracting States the duty to organise their judicial system in such a way that their courts can meet the obligation to decide cases within a reasonable time (see, among other authorities, Löffler v. Austria, no. 30546/96, § 57, 3 October 2000).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.06.2017 - 53084/99

  KORMACHEVA ET 105 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA RUSSIE

  29510/04.

  29510/04.

• EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41833/04

  YEVGENIY ALEKSEYENKO v. RUSSIA

  Therefore, the responsibility for an aggregate delay of approximately six months, caused by successful requests for dismissal of legal-aid lawyers, rests ultimately with the State (see, mutatis mutandis, Marchenko v. Russia, no. 29510/04, § 39, 5 October 2006, and Sidorenko v. Russia, no. 4459/03, § 32, 8 March 2007).
• EGMR, 25.03.2008 - 11549/02

  FALIMONOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court is of the opinion that the nature of the dispute called for particular diligence on the part of the domestic courts (compare Marchenko v. Russia, no. 29510/04, § 40, 5 October 2006).

• EGMR, 08.03.2007 - 4459/03

  SIDORENKO v. RUSSIA

  Therefore, the responsibility for an aggregated delay of approximately twelve months caused by the changes in the composition of the Town Court rests ultimately with the State (cf. Marchenko v. Russia, no. 29510/04, § 39, 5 October 2006).
• EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 24427/02

  KAYANKIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that the nature of the dispute called for particular diligence on the part of the domestic courts (see Marchenko v. Russia, no. 29510/04, § 40, 5 October 2006).
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 22674/02

  OBLOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates in this respect that the principal responsibility for delay due to expert opinions rests ultimately with the State (see Marchenko v. Russia, no. 29510/04, § 38, 5 October 2006, with further references).
• EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 9941/03

  ROLGEZER AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court is of the opinion that the nature of the dispute called for particular diligence on the part of the domestic courts (compare Marchenko v. Russia, no. 29510/04, § 40, 5 October 2006).
• EGMR, 13.12.2007 - 33820/04

  ANGELOVA v. RUSSIA

  The Court is of the opinion that the nature of the dispute called for particular diligence on the part of the domestic courts (see Marchenko v. Russia, no. 29510/04, § 40, 5 October 2006).
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 35527/04

  CIUTA v. ROMANIA

  The Court is of the opinion that the nature of the dispute called for particular diligence on the part of the domestic courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Marchenko v. Russia, no. 29510/04, § 40, 5 October 2006; Paunoiu v. Romania, no. 32700/04, § 27, 16 September 2008; and Draganescu v. Romania, no. 29301/03, § 22, 30 September 2008).
• EGMR, 30.09.2008 - 29301/03

  DRAGANESCU v. ROMANIA

  The Court is of the opinion that the nature of the dispute called for particular diligence on the part of the domestic courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Marchenko v. Russia, no. 29510/04, § 40, 5 October 2006).
• EGMR, 16.09.2008 - 32700/04

  PAUNOIU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 29.07.2008 - 6373/03

  GHEORGHE AND MARIA MIHAELA DUMITRESCU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 887/06

  BURMISTROVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 20455/04

  TUGARINOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.06.2009 - 13458/07

  VDOVINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 38015/03

  SALAMATINA v. RUSSIA