Webinar: Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten am Mi. den 14. Oktober 2026 11:30 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden
×
Weitere Entscheidungen unten: EGMR, 01.10.2020 | EGMR, 14.10.2003

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 41984/98   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2004,53308
EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 41984/98 (https://dejure.org/2004,53308)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09.11.2004 - 41984/98 (https://dejure.org/2004,53308)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09. November 2004 - 41984/98 (https://dejure.org/2004,53308)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,53308) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    SVETLANA NAUMENKO v. UKRAINE

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the length of the proceedings Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the right to a court Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to impartiality Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and ...

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (70)Zitiert selbst (6)

  • EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 66561/01

    MERIT v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 41984/98
    Regard being had to the information in the case-file and the criteria established in the Court's case-law (see Shmalko v. Ukraine, no. 60750/00, judgment of 20 July 2004, §§ 63-64; Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, judgment of 30 March 2004, § 88), the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant EUR 500 for costs and expenses.
  • EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 60750/00

    SHMALKO v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 41984/98
    Regard being had to the information in the case-file and the criteria established in the Court's case-law (see Shmalko v. Ukraine, no. 60750/00, judgment of 20 July 2004, §§ 63-64; Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, judgment of 30 March 2004, § 88), the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant EUR 500 for costs and expenses.
  • EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

    RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 41984/98
    The applicant therefore had an enforceable claim within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which constituted a "possession" within the meaning of that provision (see Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, § 59 etc).
  • EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99

    RIABYKH c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 41984/98
    The Court considers that this case is similar to the case of Ryabykh v. Russia (no. 52854/99, judgment of 24 July 2003), where it was decided that, in so far as relevant to the instant case:.
  • EGMR, 01.06.1999 - 39860/98

    SKORKIEWICZ v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 41984/98
    In their view, the instant case raised issues similar to the case of Skórkiewicz v. Poland (no. 39860/98 (dec.), 1 June 1999).
  • EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 56918/00

    LESHCHENKO AND TOLYUPA v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 41984/98
    Nevertheless, it may take note of the stage reached in the proceedings prior to 11 September 1997 when examining the complaint as a whole (see, Leshchenko and Tolyupa v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 56918/00, 6 April 2004; Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, no. 48553/99, § 57, ECHR 2002-VII).
  • EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 77317/01

    POLTORACHENKO v. UKRAINE

    The relevant domestic law is set out in the judgment of 9 November 2004 in the case of Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine (no. 41984/98).

    It finds that it would be inappropriate to separate the contentious and administrative proceedings and to assess their length in isolation (see Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, judgment of 9 November 2004, § 74).

    Furthermore, the Court has previously found a violation of this provision regarding the lack of independence and impartiality of the Ukrainian Supreme Court when dealing with a protest lodged by one of its members (Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, §§ 91-92, judgment of 9 November 2004; Tregubenko v. Ukraine (no. 61333/00, § 41, judgment of 2 November 2004).

  • EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 24500/07

    IVAN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    In the leading cases of Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, 9 November 2004 and Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 55870/00, 18 July 2006, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

    Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, §§ 109 and 112, 9 November 2004), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

  • EGMR, 08.06.2017 - 21357/08

    OVECHKINA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    In the leading cases of Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, 9 November 2004 and Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 55870/00, 18 July 2006, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

    Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, §§ 109 and 112, 9 November 2004), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 01.10.2020 - 66561/01, 41984/98   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2020,43024
EGMR, 01.10.2020 - 66561/01, 41984/98 (https://dejure.org/2020,43024)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01.10.2020 - 66561/01, 41984/98 (https://dejure.org/2020,43024)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01. Oktober 2020 - 66561/01, 41984/98 (https://dejure.org/2020,43024)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2020,43024) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

Verfahrensgang

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 14.10.2003 - 41984/98   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2003,57220
EGMR, 14.10.2003 - 41984/98 (https://dejure.org/2003,57220)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14.10.2003 - 41984/98 (https://dejure.org/2003,57220)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14. Oktober 2003 - 41984/98 (https://dejure.org/2003,57220)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2003,57220) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (3)

  • EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 40679/98

    DANKEVICH v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2003 - 41984/98
    Once this burden of proof has been satisfied, it falls to the applicant to establish that the remedy advanced by the Government was in fact exhausted, or was for some reason inadequate and ineffective in the particular circumstances of the case, or that there existed special circumstances absolving him or her from this requirement (see Dankevich v. Ukraine, no. 40679/98, § 107, 29 April 2003).
  • EGMR, 01.06.1999 - 39860/98

    SKORKIEWICZ v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2003 - 41984/98
    The Government pointed out that there was no violation of the applicant's rights as the instant case raised similar issues as the case of Skyrkiewidz v. Poland (no. 39860/98, decision on admissibility of 1 June 1999).
  • EGMR, 15.02.2000 - 42551/98

    SVINARENKOV v. ESTONIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2003 - 41984/98
    As to the applicant's complaints under Article 13 of the Convention, the Court considers it unnecessary to examine them separately as they repeat and are analogous to those under Article 6 § 1. Moreover, as the Court has already examined the applicant's complaints under Article 6 of the Convention, there is no need for the matter to be considered in the context of Article 13 which has less stringent requirements (see Svinarenkov v. Estonia (dec.), no. 42551/98, 15 February 2000).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht