Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIROSHNIK v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violations of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 75804/01

  The domestic remedy should be capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offer reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 75804/01

  The Court recalls at the outset that the right to a fair trial, of which the right to a hearing before an independent tribunal is an essential component, holds a prominent place in a democratic society (see, mutatis mutandis, the De Cubber v. Belgium judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86, p. 16, § 30 in fine).
• EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 57420/00

  YOUNGER contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 75804/01

  Where no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the time-limit expires six months after the date of the acts or measures complained of, or after the date of knowledge of that act or its effect or prejudice on the applicant (see Younger v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 57420/00, ECHR 2003-I).
• EGMR, 16.12.2003 - 48843/99

  COOPER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 75804/01

  What is decisive is whether the party's doubts can be held to be objectively justified (see, mutatis mutandis, Incal v. Turkey, judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, pp. 1572-73, § 71; and Cooper v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48843/99, § 104, ECHR 2003-XII).
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41707/98

  KHOKHLICH v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 75804/01

  It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one, available in theory and in practice at the relevant time (see Khokhlich v. Ukraine, no. 41707/98, § 149, judgment of 29 April 2003).

• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 57774/13

  MIRACLE EUROPE KFT v. HUNGARY

  What is decisive is whether the party's doubts can be held to be objectively justified (see, amongst others, Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 38784/97, § 58, ECHR 2002-I; and Miroshnik v. Ukraine, no. 75804/01, § 61, 27 November 2008, with further references).
• EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

  MIKHNO v. UKRAINE

  The Court would state at the outset that the right to a fair trial, of which the right to a hearing before an independent tribunal is an essential component, holds a prominent place in a democratic society (see, in particular, Miroshnik v. Ukraine, no. 75804/01, § 61, 27 November 2008).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 8014/07

  FRUNI v. SLOVAKIA

  What is decisive is whether the party's doubts can be held to be objectively justified (see, amongst others, Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 38784/97, § 58, ECHR 2002-I, and Miroshnik v. Ukraine, no. 75804/01, § 61, 27 November 2008, with further references).

 
• EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 36314/06

  SVITLANA ATAMANYUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  The Court would state at the outset that the right to a fair trial, of which the right to a hearing before an independent tribunal is an essential component, holds a prominent place in a democratic society (see, in particular, Miroshnik v. Ukraine, no. 75804/01, § 61, 27 November 2008).
• EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 8195/08

  TONER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Further, it is not open to the Court to set aside the application of the six-month rule even in the absence of a relevant objection from the Government (see Belaousof and Others v. Greece, no. 66296/01, § 38; and Miroshnik v. Ukraine, no. 75804/01, § 55, 27 November 2008).
• EGMR, 28.11.2019 - 1230/17

  MUSTAFA c. BULGARIE

  La Cour considère que ces caractéristiques des tribunaux militaires sont de nature à soulever certains doutes quant à leur indépendance et à leur impartialité (voir, mutatis mutandis, Tani?Ÿma c. Turquie, no 32219/05, § 83, 17 novembre 2015 ; Maszni, précité, § 56, et Miroshnik c. Ukraine, no 75804/01, § 64, 27 novembre 2008).