Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TERENTYEV v. UKRAINE

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 39763/02

  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, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 39763/02

  The Court reiterates that, in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred in order to prevent or obtain redress for the matter found to constitute a violation of the Convention and were reasonable as to quantum (see, among many other authorities, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 41984/98

  SVETLANA NAUMENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 39763/02

  The two sets of proceedings were pending simultaneously for over three years and, based on the materials in the Court's possession, there is no conclusive evidence that their factual and evidentiary basis was identical or that the outcome of the proceedings concerning the division of land was decisive for the determination of the applicant's right to compensation (see by contrast Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, §§ 74-75, 9 November 2004).

• EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 36545/02

  MOROZ AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 39763/02

  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 e.g. Smirnova v. Ukraine, no. 36655/02, § 69, 8 November 2005; Siliny v. Ukraine, no. 23926/02, § 34, 13 July 2006; and Moroz and Others v. Ukraine, no. 36545/02, §§ 59-60, 21 December 2006).
• EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 21287/02

  PRYSTAVSKA contre l'UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 39763/02

  The subsequent unsuccessful attempts of the defendant to obtain re-opening of the proceedings after this judgment had become final cannot be taken into account, since such proceedings fall outside the scope of Article 6 § 1 (see e.g. Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 23926/02

  SILINY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 39763/02

  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 e.g. Smirnova v. Ukraine, no. 36655/02, § 69, 8 November 2005; Siliny v. Ukraine, no. 23926/02, § 34, 13 July 2006; and Moroz and Others v. Ukraine, no. 36545/02, §§ 59-60, 21 December 2006).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 36655/02

  SMIRNOVA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 39763/02

  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 e.g. Smirnova v. Ukraine, no. 36655/02, § 69, 8 November 2005; Siliny v. Ukraine, no. 23926/02, § 34, 13 July 2006; and Moroz and Others v. Ukraine, no. 36545/02, §§ 59-60, 21 December 2006).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 03.10.2018 - 10347/07

  STARYGIN AGAINST UKRAINE AND 170 OTHER CASES

  39763/02.
• EGMR, 06.06.2019 - 20880/07

  BUSHBM-PLYUS, TOV v. UKRAINE

  It considers, therefore, that it is not appropriate to take up this matter in the context of the present case (see, for instance, Terentyev v. Ukraine, no. 39763/02, §§ 32-33, 29 May 2008).
• EGMR, 13.10.2011 - 20856/05

  MAKHONKO v. UKRAINE

  From the outset, the Court considers that, even though the first two sets of proceedings were pending simultaneously from 9 June 1998 to 13 December 2001, the length of each set should be examined separately (see Terentyev v. Ukraine, no. 39763/02, § 39, 29 August 2008).
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 22581/04

  CHEPYZHNA v. UKRAINE

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Golovko v. Ukraine, no. 39161/02, §§ 61-65, 1 February 2007; Terentyev v. Ukraine, no. 39763/02, §§ 42-46, 29 May 2008; Siliny v. Ukraine, no. 23926/02, §§ 32-37, 13 July 2006, and Teliga and Others v. Ukraine, no. 72551/01, § 95, 21 December 2006).