Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHCHIGLITSOV v. ESTONIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

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

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 26083/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 35062/03

  It is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to resolve problems of interpretation of domestic legislation (see Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, § 54, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 35062/03

  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).
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 07.10.2005 - 18/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 35062/03

  18/04/2007.
• EGMR, 21.11.1995 - 18072/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 35062/03

  The Court finds that the applicant's submissions do not disclose any appearance of a violation of his right to family life, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Velosa Barreto v. Portugal, judgment of 21 November 1995, Series A no. 334, pp. 10-12, §§ 21 and 29-30).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 6905/09

  [ENG]

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Estonia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; Treial v. Estonia, no. 48129/99, 2 December 2003; Shchiglitsov v. Estonia, no. 35062/03, 18 January 2007; Saarekallas OÜ v. Estonia, no. 11548/04, 8 November 2007; Missenjov v. Estonia, no. 43276/06, 29 January 2009; and Raudsepp v. Estonia, no. 54191/07, 8 November 2011).
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 54191/07

  RAUDSEPP v. ESTONIA

  She had been in a similar situation, as required by that provision, to the applicants in earlier cases concerning length of proceedings before the Court (Saarekallas OÜ v. Estonia, no. 11548/04, 8 November 2007; Shchiglitsov v. Estonia, no. 35062/03, 18 January 2007; and Treial v. Estonia, no. 48129/99, 2 December 2003).
• EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 27669/08

  OMBLUS v. ESTONIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Estonia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see Treial v. Estonia, no. 48129/99, 2 December 2003; Shchiglitsov v. Estonia, no. 35062/03, 18 January 2007; Saarekallas OÜ v. Estonia, no. 11548/04, 8 November 2007; and Missenjov v. Estonia, no. 43276/06, 29 January 2009).
• EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 43276/06

  MISSENJOV v. ESTONIA

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Frydlender, cited above, and also Saarekallas, cited above, Shchiglitsov v. Estonia, no. 35062/03, 18 January 2007, Treial v. Estonia, no. 48129/99, 2 December 2003).