Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VERETENNIKOV v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 8363/03

  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 applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 25.11.2003 - 41431/98

  WIERCISZEWSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 8363/03

  Although the Court is not in a position to analyse the juridical quality of the domestic courts" decisions, it considers that, since the remittal of cases for re-examination is frequently ordered as a result of errors committed by lower courts, the repetition of such orders within one set of proceedings may disclose a serious deficiency in the judicial system (see Wierciszewska v. Poland, no. 41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003; Yurtayev v. Ukraine, no. 11336/02, § 41, 31 January 2006; Matica v. Romania, no. 19567/02, § 24, 2 November 2006; and Maruseva v. Russia, no. 28602/02, § 32, 29 May 2008).
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 19567/02

  MATICA v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 8363/03

  Although the Court is not in a position to analyse the juridical quality of the domestic courts" decisions, it considers that, since the remittal of cases for re-examination is frequently ordered as a result of errors committed by lower courts, the repetition of such orders within one set of proceedings may disclose a serious deficiency in the judicial system (see Wierciszewska v. Poland, no. 41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003; Yurtayev v. Ukraine, no. 11336/02, § 41, 31 January 2006; Matica v. Romania, no. 19567/02, § 24, 2 November 2006; and Maruseva v. Russia, no. 28602/02, § 32, 29 May 2008).

• EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 59498/00

  BURDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 8363/03

  The Court considers that this complaint should be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 26, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 13.01.2005 - 5124/03

  GIZZATOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 8363/03

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see Aleksandrova, cited above, §§ 20-26; Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, §§ 18-29, 13 January 2005; and Yavorivskaya v. Russia, no. 34687/02, §§ 24-29, 21 July 2005).
• EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 34687/02

  YAVORIVSKAYA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 8363/03

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see Aleksandrova, cited above, §§ 20-26; Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, §§ 18-29, 13 January 2005; and Yavorivskaya v. Russia, no. 34687/02, §§ 24-29, 21 July 2005).
• EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 5836/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 8363/03

  The Court considers that the period of enforcement does not fall within the period to be taken into account in respect of the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings because the applicant has made a separate complaint about the non-enforcement proper (see Malama v. Greece, no. 43622/98, § 34 ECHR 2001-II, and Alekseyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 5836/05, 13 November 2008).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 28965/02

  ALEKSANDROVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 8363/03

  The Government have not demonstrated that the enterprise in the present case enjoyed sufficient institutional and operational independence from the State to absolve the latter from responsibility under the Convention for its acts and omissions (see Aleksandrova v. Russia, no. 28965/02, § 17, 6 December 2007, with further references).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 27440/03

  FINKOV v. RUSSIA

  Secondly, the periods of pure non-enforcement should not be taken into account in respect of the complaint concerning the length if the Court has already considered these periods when assessing the complaint about the non-enforcement (see Malama v. Greece, no. 43622/98, § 34, ECHR 2001-II; Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00, § 76, 6 October 2005; Alekseyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 5836/05, 13 November 2008; Lukyanchenko v. Ukraine, no. 17327/02, § 33, 15 May 2008; Kabkov v. Russia, no. 12377/03, § 49, 17 July 2008; and Veretennikov v. Russia, no. 8363/03, § 31, 12 March 2009).
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 24086/04

  BULYCHEVY v. RUSSIA

  The Court considers that the enforcement period does not fall within the period to be taken into account in respect of the applicants' complaint of the lengthy court proceedings because they have made a separate complaint about the non-enforcement proper (see Veretennikov v. Russia, no. 8363/03, § 31, 12 March 2009 and Finkov v. Russia, no. 27440/03, § 94, 8 October 2009).
• EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 16583/04

  GRIBANENKOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that the periods of pure non-enforcement should not be taken into account in respect of the complaint concerning the length of proceedings if the Court has already considered these periods when assessing the complaint about the non-enforcement (see Malama v. Greece, no. 43622/98, § 34 ECHR 2001-II; Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00, § 76, 6 October 2005; and Veretennikov v. Russia, no. 8363/03, § 31, 12 March 2009).