Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  COSMOS MARITIME TRADING AND SHIPPING AGENCY v. UKRAINE

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  COSMOS MARITIME TRADING AND SHIPPING AGENCY v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.10.2005 - 6778/05

  MPP GOLUB c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2019 - 53427/09

  The provisions which governed the review of decisions in commercial cases prior to the 2010 reform can be found in MPP Golub v. Ukraine ((dec.), no. 6778/05, 18 October 2005).

  While prior to the legislative changes of 2010 an appeal in cassation to the Supreme Court was an effective remedy in commercial cases (see MPP Golub v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 6778/05, 18 October 2005), the legislative changes of 2010 (see paragraph 47 above) made the situation of the Supreme Court in commercial proceedings fully analogous to the one which it had previously played in administrative proceedings.

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2019 - 53427/09

  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 Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2019 - 53427/09

  The Court reiterates that extraordinary appeals seeking the reopening of terminated judicial proceedings do not normally involve the determination of "civil rights and obligations" or of "any criminal charge" and therefore Article 6 is deemed inapplicable to them (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 44, ECHR 2015).

• EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 41984/98

  SVETLANA NAUMENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2019 - 53427/09

  In Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine (no. 41984/98, 9 November 2004), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 33949/02

  BELUKHA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2019 - 53427/09

  In such circumstances the Court must conclude that, despite the absence of reasons to doubt the impartiality of the individual judges concerned, the applicant company's perception that the court dealing with its case lacked impartiality can be seen, by an objective observer, as not manifestly devoid of merit (compare, for example, Belukha v. Ukraine, no. 33949/02, § 54, 9 November 2006, where a violation was found because a court president had requested and received free of charge equipment for the court from the defendant in Ms Belukha's case).
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2019 - 53427/09

  The Court reiterates that it is the facts alleged by the applicant and not their legal characterisation under the Convention proposed by the applicant that are key to the application of the six-month rule (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 115 and 120, 20 March 2018).
• EGMR, 03.04.2007 - 43788/05

  KARUNA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2019 - 53427/09

  The rules applicable to such applications at the relevant time were analogous to those examined in Karuna v. Ukraine ((dec.), no. 43788/05, 3 April 2007).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.06.2026 - 474/21

  SHEVCHUK v. UKRAINE

  Rn. 96 There is no indication that the Constitutional Court addressed the applicant's concerns about those judges' participation (see, mutatis mutandis, Suren Antonyan v. Armenia, no. 20140/23, § 138, 23 January 2025, and Cosmos Maritime Trading and Shipping Agency v. Ukraine, no. 53427/09, § 81, 27 June 2019).
• EGMR, 17.12.2020 - 66994/14

  HRVATSKI GOLF SAVEZ v. CROATIA

  The Court also recalls that it has awarded non-pecuniary damage to juristic persons in cases in which it had found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the lack of impartiality (see Editorial Board of Grivna Newspaper v. Ukraine, no. 41214/08, § 138, 16 April 2019, and Cosmos Maritime Trading and Shipping Agency v. Ukraine, no. 53427/09, § 104, 27 June 2019).
• EGMR, 02.09.2025 - 60680/16

  VESTRA, PP v. UKRAINE and 6 other applications

  In view of these circumstances, the Court in Cosmos Maritime Trading and Shipping Agency v. Ukraine (no. 53427/09, §§ 60-62, 27 June 2019) expressed doubts whether such new procedure could be considered an effective remedy.

• EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 11161/08

  MONT BLANC TRADING LTD AND ANTARES TITANIUM TRADING LTD v. UKRAINE

  The Court has already ruled that prior to the legislative changes of 2010 an appeal in cassation to the Supreme Court constituted an effective remedy in commercial cases (see Cosmos Maritime Trading and Shipping Agency v. Ukraine, no. 53427/09, § 61, 27 June 2019), and there are no grounds for departing from that finding in the present case.
• EGMR, 16.02.2023 - 68353/17

  KRAYNYAK v. UKRAINE

  Where the applicant raises doubts as to the courts' impartiality which are not manifestly devoid of merit, the absence of a timely examination of such a challenge may raise an issue of objective impartiality (see Remli v. France, 23 April 1996, § 48, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II; Gazeta Ukraina-Tsentr v. Ukraine, no. 16695/04, §§ 34 and 35, 15 July 2010; and Cosmos Maritime Trading and Shipping Agency v. Ukraine, no. 53427/09, §§ 78-82, 27 June 2019).
• EGMR, 03.03.2020 - 40972/09

  BOROVINSKIY v. UKRAINE

  The Court has already ruled that prior to legislative changes of 2010 an appeal in cassation to the Supreme Court constituted an effective remedy in commercial cases (see Cosmos Maritime Trading and Shipping Agency v. Ukraine, no. 53427/09, § 61, 27 June 2019) and considers that there are no grounds to depart from that finding in respect of the present case.