Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GOLOVKO v. UKRAINE

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

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 39161/02

  The Court recalls that the "reasonable" length of proceedings must be assessed in accordance with the circumstances of the case and the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the behaviour of the applicant and that of the competent 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, 28.06.1990 - 11761/85

  Obermeier ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 39161/02

  The Court notes that the salary was the main source of income for the applicant and that special diligence is necessary in employment disputes (see, mutatis mutandis, among many other, Obermeier v. Austria, judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A no. 179, § 72 and Trevisan v. Italy, judgment of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-F, § 18).

• EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 21922/07

  DEMENOVA v. UKRAINE

  Consequently, it finds that what was at stake for the applicant called for expeditious decision on her claims (Golovko v. Ukraine, no. 39161/02, §§ 54-55, 1 February 2007).
• EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 5547/07

  SURDINA v. UKRAINE

  Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that there is nothing to suggest that the court could not have considered the case in the parties" absence (see Golovko v. Ukraine, no. 39161/02, § 59, 1 February 2007).
• EGMR, 08.12.2011 - 44654/06

  PETROV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  The Court reiterates that special diligence is necessary in disputes relating to the applicant's principle source of income (see, mutatis mutandis, among other authorities, Ruotolo v. Italy, judgment of 27 February 1992, Series A no. 230-D, p. 39, § 17; Tusashvili v. Russia, no. 20496/04, § 25, 15 December 2005 and Golovko v. Ukraine, no. 39161/02, § 54-55, 1 February 2007).
• EGMR, 24.11.2011 - 53443/07

  CHERNYSH v. UKRAINE

  The Court notes that the majority of the hearings in the applicant's case were adjourned due to the respondents" representatives" failure to appear, there is nothing to suggest that the courts could not have considered the case in their absence (see Golovko v. Ukraine, no. 39161/02, § 59, 1 February 2007).
• EGMR, 05.04.2012 - 44674/05

  LOBATSKA v. UKRAINE

  In particular, there is nothing to suggest that the courts could not have considered the case in the respondents" absence (see Golovko v. Ukraine, no. 39161/02, § 59, 1 February 2007).