Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EFIMENKO v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Not necessary to examine P1-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 55870/00
• EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 55870/00

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 55870/00

  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, 11.03.2021 - 15016/07

  SCHRADE v. GEORGIA

  To start with, the Court has already dealt with the question of the effectiveness of disciplinary actions against individual judges, albeit in relation to other member States, and found that when a disciplinary sanction concerned only the personal position of the responsible judge and in the absence of "direct and immediate consequence for the proceedings which have given rise to the complaint" it was not an effective for the purpose of speeding up the proceedings (see Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, § 62, 29 January 2004; Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 55870/00, § 49, 18 July 2006, and Moroz and Others v. Ukraine, no. 36545/02, § 47, 21 December 2006; see also, mutatis mutandis, Constantin Oprea v. Romania, no. 24724/03, § 41, 8 November 2007).
• EGMR, 02.05.2013 - 4469/07

  SAVENKOVA v. UKRAINE

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 13 of the Convention, stating that the current Ukrainian legislation does not provide a remedy for complaints concerning the length of proceedings (see Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 55870/00, 18 July 2006).
• EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 35909/06

  TROFIMOVA AND ZYLKOVA v. UKRAINE

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 13 of the Convention, stating that the current Ukrainian legislation does not provide a remedy for complaints concerning the length of proceedings (see Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 55870/00, 18 July 2006).
• EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 47753/15

  FROLOV v. UKRAINE

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Ukraine, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §§ 43 and 45, ECHR 2000-VII; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, 9 November 2004 and Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 55870/00, 18 July 2006).
• EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 26864/03

  VASHCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  The Court considers that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of a remedy under domestic law whereby the applicant could have obtained a ruling upholding his right to have his case heard within a reasonable time, as set forth in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 55870/00, § 64, 18 July 2006).