Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TRUPS v. LATVIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 58497/08

  With respect to the alleged breach of the reasonable time requirement in criminal proceedings, the Court has previously recognised that the Contracting States have a certain discretion as to the manner in which they provide relief, (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 154, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 65745/01

  Beschleunigungsgrundsatz im Haftverfahren (doppelte Strafmilderung bei Verletzung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 58497/08

  The Court has accepted that such forms of non-pecuniary compensatory remedies as discontinuation of criminal proceedings (see Sprotte v. Germany, no. 72438/01, 17 November 2005) or mitigation of the sentence (see Dzelili v. Germany, no. 65745/01, § 103, 10 November 2005) would be considered as effective in cases of unreasonably lengthy criminal proceedings, so long as the national authorities have acknowledged the infringement in a sufficiently clear way and applied the redress in an express and measured manner (see Beck v. Norway, no. 26390/95, § 27, 26 June 2001, and Moisejevs, cited above, § 101).
• EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 23563/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 58497/08

  Similarly, a measured reduction of a sentence compensates or diminishes the consequences arising from excessively long criminal proceedings (see Gagliano Giorgi v. Italy, no. 23563/07, § 57, 6 March 2012).

• EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 26073/03

  Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung (überlange Verfahrensdauer; Kriterien der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 58497/08

  The Court has, in its case-law, accepted that the termination of criminal proceedings could in principle serve as an effective ex post-facto remedy in excessive length of criminal proceedings cases, at least in situations where the remedy was applied on the assumption that the persons concerned could be found guilty (see Ommer v. Germany (no. 2), no. 26073/03, § 58, 13 November 2008).
• EGMR, 17.11.2005 - 72438/01

  Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung (Umfang der Prüfung des EGMR nach nationaler …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 58497/08

  The Court has accepted that such forms of non-pecuniary compensatory remedies as discontinuation of criminal proceedings (see Sprotte v. Germany, no. 72438/01, 17 November 2005) or mitigation of the sentence (see Dzelili v. Germany, no. 65745/01, § 103, 10 November 2005) would be considered as effective in cases of unreasonably lengthy criminal proceedings, so long as the national authorities have acknowledged the infringement in a sufficiently clear way and applied the redress in an express and measured manner (see Beck v. Norway, no. 26390/95, § 27, 26 June 2001, and Moisejevs, cited above, § 101).
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 61005/00

  KORNAKOVS c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 58497/08

  The Court reiterates its earlier case-law in which it established that during the period when the former Code of Criminal Procedure was in force in Latvia, the individuals concerned were not afforded effective remedies in relation to excessive length of criminal proceedings (see, amongst others, Kornakovs v. Latvia, no. 61005/00, § 112, 15 June 2006, and Moisejevs, cited above, § 122).
• EKMR, 26.06.1995 - 21782/93

  RAIF c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 58497/08

  It has to be recalled that when a doubt exists as to the effectiveness of a remedy, that remedy has to be tried (see, amongst other authorities, Reif v. Greece, No 21782/93, 28 June 1995).
• EGMR, 22.04.2008 - 30072/04

  STEFAN KOZLOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 58497/08

  Having examined the domestic decisions submitted to it, the Court is satisfied that the application of section 14 of the Law of Criminal Procedure was not limited by temporal restrictions (see Stefan Kozlowski v. Poland, no. 30072/04, § 38, 22 April 2008) in that, as demonstrated by the domestic case-law examples, section 14 of the Law of Criminal Procedure had been applied in order to terminate unreasonably lengthy criminal proceedings instituted before 1 October 2005, that is, the date when the Law of Criminal Procedure became effective.
• EGMR, 09.05.2003 - 47863/99

  SOC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 58497/08

  Besides, in its earlier case-law the Court has recognised that in order to keep pace with changing circumstances, laws may not be absolutely precise (see, amongst other authorities, Soc v. Croatia, no. 47863/99, § 92, 9 May 2003, with other references), the Court will therefore examine whether at the material time the approach of the national courts in dealing with complaints about lengthy criminal proceedings in practice complied with the principles established by the Court's case-law.
• EKMR, 18.04.1991 - 15123/89

  BRAITHWAITE c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 58497/08

  In connection with the applicant's allegations that the domestic courts had not assessed the length of the proceedings on its own motion, the Court recalls that, even where domestic courts have to consider matters on their own motion, the applicants are not exempted from the requirement of Article 35 (1) of the Convention (see, amongst other, Braithwaite v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 15123/89).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.10.2026 - 8412/23

  REKA KISS v. HUNGARY

  The mere fact that an applicant has submitted his or her case to the various competent courts does not itself constitute compliance with the requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention as even in those jurisdictions where the domestic courts are able, or even obliged, to examine the case of their own motion, applicants are not dispensed from raising before them the complaint subsequently made to the Court (see, for example, Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, § 39, Series A no. 40; Dalipi v. Greece (dec.), no. 51588/08, § 20, 26 June 2012, and Trūps v. Latvia (dec.), no. 58497/08, § 56, 20 November 2012).
• EGMR, 23.09.2026 - 19365/19

  KUIJT v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Enfin, la Cour a toujours dit que, même lorsque les juridictions internes ont l'obligation d'examiner d'office des questions, les requérants ne sont pas dispensés de respecter les exigences de l'article 35 de la Convention (voir, par exemple, Dalipi c. Grèce (déc.), no 51588/08, § 20, 26 juin 2012, Trūps c. Lettonie (déc.), no 58497/08, § 56, 20 novembre 2012, et Merot d.o.o. et Storitve Tir d.o.o. c. Croatie (déc.), nos 29426/08 et 29737/08, § 36, 10 décembre 2013).
• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 6670/06

  PANCERS v. LATVIA

  The relevant legal provisions and the domestic case-law in relation to the right to completion of the criminal proceedings within a "reasonable time" have been summarised in the case Trups v. Latvia (dec.), no. 58497/08, 20 November 2012.

  The Court recalls that in Trups v. Latvia (dec.), no. 58497/08, 20 November 2012, the Court concluded that, as shown by the national courts" practice, section 14 of the Law of Criminal Procedure, dated 1 October 2005, had established a compensatory remedy for complaints of unreasonably lengthy criminal proceedings which had to be exhausted.

• EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 16800/11

  ZEREBKOVS v. LATVIA

  In addition to the relevant domestic practice summarised in Trūps v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 58497/08, §§ 26-33, 20 November 2012), the Government provided further examples of the domestic courts applying section 491 of the Criminal Law in practice.

  Various types of remedies could in theory be compatible with the Convention - an effective preventive remedy that expedites the criminal proceedings and subsequently prevents them from becoming unreasonably lengthy; a compensatory remedy that provides adequate redress, pecuniary or non-pecuniary, for any violation that has already occurred; or a combination of both the above (see Trūps v. Latvia (dec.), no. 58497/08, § 45, 20 November 2012, with further references).

• EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 29426/08

  [ENG]

  However, as the Court's case-law bears out (see paragraph 34 above), the mere fact that an applicant has submitted his or her case to the various competent courts does not itself constitute compliance with the requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention as even in those jurisdictions where the domestic courts are able, or even obliged to examine the case of their own motion applicants are not dispensed from raising before them the complaint subsequently made to the Court (see, for example, Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, § 39, Series A no. 40; Dalipi v. Greece (dec.), no. 51588/08, § 20, 26 June 2012; and TrÅ«ps v. Latvia (dec.), no. 58497/08, 20 November 2012).
• EGMR, 19.04.2017 - 61005/00

  KORNAKOVS ET 5 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA LETTONIE

  Mittelfranken/BayTTV; 30.10.2003; 5/03">05/03/2013 and Trups v. Latvia (No. 58497/08) of 20/11/2012) the Court found that the law provides for a compensatory review which is sufficiently clear and specific and rejected the complaints on the excessive length of criminal proceedings for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
• EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 6194/11

  VALCHEVA v. BULGARIA and 1 other application

  26716/09, 67576/09 and 7698/10, § 28, 23 September 2010; and TrÅ«ps v. Latvia (dec.), no. 58497/08, §§ 45-46, 20 November 2012).
• EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 11579/05

  [ENG]

  The relevant legal provisions and the domestic case-law have been summarised in the case of TrÅ«ps v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 58497/08, §§ 16-33, 20 November 2012).
• EGMR, 07.12.2017 - 32163/09

  [ENG]

  The relevant legal provisions and the domestic case-law in respect of to the right for criminal proceedings to be completed within a "reasonable time" have been summarised in the case of Trūps v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 58497/08, §§ 16-33, 20 November 2012).
• EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 15152/12

  VEISS v. LATVIA

  It is true that the Court has accepted that in criminal cases a reduction of the final sentence imposed on the applicant may sometimes amount to such compensation (see, for example, Trūps v. Latvia (dec.), no. 58497/08, 20 November 2012).
• EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 5436/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 30780/13

  BERZINS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 05.02.2026 - 9276/19

  STUDENTE v. LATVIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 32983/08

  MERTENA v. LATVIA