Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZAYTSEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 42046/06

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 42046/06

  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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 01.12.2005 - 33914/02

  SKOROBOGATOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 42046/06

  As to the end of the period in question, the Court, being mindful of the Government's admission made on 30 March 2007 (see paragraph 32 above), considers that the period ended on 23 January 2004 when the District Court complied with its statutory obligation to serve the first applicant with a copy of the decision of 14 November 2002 (see, for similar reasoning, Skorobogatova v. Russia, no. 33914/02, § 40, 1 December 2005, with further references).

• EGMR, 07.06.2017 - 53084/99

  KORMACHEVA ET 105 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 42046/06

  It notes that the Government did not indicate any remedy that could have expedited the determination of the first applicant's case or provided him with adequate redress for the delays that had already occurred (see Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, 29 January 2004, § 64).
• EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 34030/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 42046/06

  The Court reiterates that where an applicant is entitled to be served ex officio with a written copy of the final domestic decision, the object and purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention are best served by counting the six-month period as running from the date of service of the written judgment (see Jalowiecki v. Poland, no. 34030/07, § 21, 17 February 2009, Papachelas v. Greece [GC], no. 31423/96, § 30, ECHR 1999-II, and Worm v. Austria, § 33, 29 August 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-V).
• EGMR, 29.07.2004 - 54725/00

  O'REILLY AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 42046/06

  The Court does not consider that these two applicants can claim to be victims of violations of those provisions when neither of them were a party to those proceedings (see O'Reilly and Others v. Ireland (dec.), no. 54725/00, 4 September 2003).
• EGMR, 22.12.2005 - 14983/04

  RYBAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 42046/06

  Accordingly, the Court considers that the domestic courts did not avail themselves of the measures available to them under national law to discipline the participants to the proceedings and to ensure that the case was heard within a reasonable time (see Rybakov v. Russia, no. 14983/04, § 32, 22 December 2005).
• EGMR, 03.05.2001 - 39032/97

  SMITS, KLEYN, METTLER TOLEDO B.V. ET AL., RAYMAKERS, VERENIGING LANDELIJK OVERLEG …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 42046/06

  39032/97, 39343/98, etc., 3 May 2001).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.06.2017 - 53084/99

  KORMACHEVA ET 105 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA RUSSIE

  42046/06.

  42046/06.

• EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 25270/06

  [ENG]

  The Court reiterates that according to its case-law there was at the material time no effective remedy under Russian law capable of affording redress for the unreasonable length of civil proceedings (see, among many other authorities, Kormacheva, cited above, §§ 61-62; Kuzin v. Russia, no. 22118/02, §§ 42-46, 9 June 2005; Bakiyevets v. Russia, no. 22892/03, § 53, 15 June 2006; Markova v. Russia, no. 13119/03, § 31, 8 January 2009; and Zaytsev and Others v. Russia, no. 42046/06, § 48, 25 June 2009).
• EGMR, 02.10.2014 - 4261/04

  [ENG]

  The Court reiterates its settled case-law, according to which the object and purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention are best served by counting the six-month period as running from the date of service of the written judgment in cases where the applicant is entitled - pursuant to domestic law - to be served automatically with a written copy of the final domestic decision, irrespective of whether or not that judgment was previously delivered orally (see Worm v. Austria, 29 August 1997, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-V; Venkadajalasarma v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 58510/11, 9 July 2002; Sukhorubchenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 69315/01, 15 January 2004; Groshev v. Russia, no. 69889/01, § 22, 20 October 2005; and Zaytsev and Others v. Russia, no. 42046/06, § 37, 25 June 2009).

• EGMR, 18.02.2016 - 44099/04

  [ENG]

  Thus, even though L. M. Akhtyamova and A. M. Akhtyamov did not have a formal status of parties to the proceedings from the start, the Court finds that their own "civil rights and obligations" were at issue in those proceedings (contrast with Zaytsev and Others v. Russia, no. 42046/06, § 36, 25 June 2009).
• EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 16583/04

  GRIBANENKOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court further observes that according to its case-law there is no effective remedy under Russian law capable of affording redress for the unreasonable length of civil proceedings (see, among many other authorities, Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, §§ 61-62, 29 January 2004; Kuzin v. Russia, no. 22118/02, §§ 42-46, 9 June 2005; Bakiyevets v. Russia, no. 22892/03, § 53, 15 June 2006; Markova v. Russia, no. 13119/03, § 31, 8 January 2009; and Zaytsev and Others v. Russia, no. 42046/06, § 48, 25 June 2009).
• EGMR, 21.07.2016 - 5076/05

  [ENG]

  As regards the domestic remedies existing prior to the adoption of the aforementioned pilot judgment, the Court reiterates its previous finding that at the time when the applicants brought their applications to Strasbourg there was no effective remedy under Russian law capable of affording redress for the unreasonable length of civil proceedings (see Meshcheryakov v. Russia, no. 24564/04, § 36, 3 February 2011 with references therein, and Zaytsev and Others v. Russia, no. 42046/06, § 48, 25 June 2009).
• EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 24564/04

  MESHCHERYAKOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that according to its previous findings, at the time when the applicant brought his application to Strasbourg there was no effective remedy under Russian law capable of affording redress for the unreasonable length of civil proceedings (see, among many other authorities, Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, § 61-62, 29 January 2004; Kuzin v. Russia, no. 22118/02, §§ 42-46, 9 June 2005; Bakiyevets v. Russia, no. 22892/03, § 53, 15 June 2006; Markova v. Russia, no. 13119/03, § 31, 8 January 2009; and Zaytsev and Others v. Russia, no. 42046/06, § 48, 25 June 2009).
• EGMR, 14.06.2018 - 18849/04

  DOMBROVSKAYA AND PROKHOROV v. RUSSIA

  Having examined all the material submitted to it, as well as the Government's objection pertaining to the applicants' failure to exhaust domestic remedies, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility (see, among many other authorities, Kormacheva, cited above, §§ 61-62; Kuzin v. Russia, no. 22118/02, §§ 42-46, 9 June 2005; Bakiyevets v. Russia, no. 22892/03, § 53, 15 June 2006; Markova v. Russia, no. 13119/03, § 31, 8 January 2009; and Zaytsev and Others v. Russia, no. 42046/06, § 48, 25 June 2009, dealing with the lack of remedies in Russian law, at the time, capable of affording redress for the unreasonable length of civil proceedings) and merits of these complaints.
• EGMR, 21.07.2016 - 23975/06

  GRECHKIN AND SMIRNOVA v. RUSSIA

  As regards the domestic remedies existing prior to the adoption of the aforementioned pilot judgment, the Court reiterates its previous finding that at the time when the applicants brought their applications to Strasbourg there was no effective remedy under Russian law capable of affording redress for the unreasonable length of civil proceedings (see Meshcheryakov v. Russia, no. 24564/04, § 36, 3 February 2011 with references therein, and Zaytsev and Others v. Russia, no. 42046/06, § 48, 25 June 2009).
• EGMR, 21.07.2016 - 42139/05

  [ENG]

  As regards the domestic remedies existing prior to the adoption of the aforementioned pilot judgment, the Court reiterates its previous finding that at the time when the applicants brought their applications to Strasbourg there was no effective remedy under Russian law capable of affording redress for the unreasonable length of civil proceedings (see Meshcheryakov v. Russia, no. 24564/04, § 36, 3 February 2011 with references therein, and Zaytsev and Others v. Russia, no. 42046/06, § 48, 25 June 2009).
• EGMR, 21.07.2016 - 4174/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 9487/02

  MEDVEDEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.06.2010 - 20441/02

  LELIK v. RUSSIA