Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BURMISTROVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BURMISTROVA v. RUSSIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 887/06

  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 many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 29.03.1989 - 11118/84

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 887/06

  The Court recalls that particular urgency is required where, inter alia, the delay may render the proceedings pointless; the case concerns the applicants" health and payment of social benefits, means of substance, civil status and capacity or employment dispute (see X v. France, 31 March 1992, § 47, Series A no. 234-C; Marchenko v. Russia, no. 29510/04, § 40, 5 October 2006; Shneyderman v. Russia, no. 36045/02, § 26, 11 January 2007; Bock v. Germany, 29 March 1989, §§ 47-49, Series A no. 150; Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, § 56, 29 January 2004).
• EGMR, 31.03.1992 - 18020/91

  X c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 887/06

  The Court recalls that particular urgency is required where, inter alia, the delay may render the proceedings pointless; the case concerns the applicants" health and payment of social benefits, means of substance, civil status and capacity or employment dispute (see X v. France, 31 March 1992, § 47, Series A no. 234-C; Marchenko v. Russia, no. 29510/04, § 40, 5 October 2006; Shneyderman v. Russia, no. 36045/02, § 26, 11 January 2007; Bock v. Germany, 29 March 1989, §§ 47-49, Series A no. 150; Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, § 56, 29 January 2004).
• EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 29510/04

  MARCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 887/06

  The Court recalls that particular urgency is required where, inter alia, the delay may render the proceedings pointless; the case concerns the applicants" health and payment of social benefits, means of substance, civil status and capacity or employment dispute (see X v. France, 31 March 1992, § 47, Series A no. 234-C; Marchenko v. Russia, no. 29510/04, § 40, 5 October 2006; Shneyderman v. Russia, no. 36045/02, § 26, 11 January 2007; Bock v. Germany, 29 March 1989, §§ 47-49, Series A no. 150; Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, § 56, 29 January 2004).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 36045/02

  SHNEYDERMAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 887/06

  The Court recalls that particular urgency is required where, inter alia, the delay may render the proceedings pointless; the case concerns the applicants" health and payment of social benefits, means of substance, civil status and capacity or employment dispute (see X v. France, 31 March 1992, § 47, Series A no. 234-C; Marchenko v. Russia, no. 29510/04, § 40, 5 October 2006; Shneyderman v. Russia, no. 36045/02, § 26, 11 January 2007; Bock v. Germany, 29 March 1989, §§ 47-49, Series A no. 150; Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, § 56, 29 January 2004).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 30.06.2016 - 15327/05

  KHANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In particular, the Court notes that having regard to the overall length of the proceeding, the relevant complexity of the cases, the applicants' conduct and that of the authorities, including the diligence they displayed while dealing with the cases, and the levels of jurisdiction involved, the length of the proceedings was not excessive and met the "reasonable time" requirement (see, among other authorities, Nikitin v. Russia (dec.), no. 50178/99, ECHR 13/11/2003; Stukalova v. Russia (dec.), no. 58292/00, ECHR 19/10/2004; Zenevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 4567/02, ECHR 06/07/2006; Mironov v. Russia (dec.), no. 22625/02, ECHR 05/10/2006; Kupreyanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 21158/05, ECHR 12/02/2009; Lyakhevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 26704/02, ECHR 12/11/2013; Burmistrova v. Russia (dec.), no. 887/06, ECHR 17/02/2015).
• EGMR, 13.09.2018 - 47807/06

  SAVELYUK v. RUSSIA

  In particular, the Court notes that having regard to the overall length of the proceeding, approximately 5 years and 11 months, the relevant complexity of the case, the number of defendants involved, the special judicial status of the defendants, including the applicant, the applicant's conduct and that of the authorities, including the diligence they displayed while dealing with the case, and the levels of jurisdiction involved, the length of the proceedings was not excessive and met the "reasonable time" requirement (see, among other authorities, Nikitin v. Russia (dec.), no. 50178/99, 13 November 2003; Stukalova v. Russia (dec.), no. 58292/00, 19 October 2004; Zenevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 4567/02, 6 July 2006; Mironov v. Russia (dec.), no. 22625/02, 5 October 2006; Kupreyanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 21158/05, 12 February 2009; Lyakhevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 26704/02, 12 November 2013; and Burmistrova v. Russia (dec.), no. 887/06, 17 February 2015).
• EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 4902/08

  GORBATYKH v. RUSSIA

  In particular, the Court notes that having regard to the overall length of the proceeding, the relevant complexity of the case, the applicant's conduct and that of the authorities, including the diligence they displayed while dealing with the cases, and the levels of jurisdiction involved, the length of the proceedings was not excessive and met the "reasonable time" requirement (see, among other authorities, Nikitin v. Russia (dec.), no. 50178/99, ECHR 13/11/2003; Stukalova v. Russia (dec.), no. 58292/00, ECHR 19/10/2004; Zenevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 4567/02, ECHR 06/07/2006; Mironov v. Russia (dec.), no. 22625/02, ECHR 05/10/2006; Kupreyanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 21158/05, ECHR 12/02/2009; Lyakhevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 26704/02, ECHR 12/11/2013; Burmistrova v. Russia (dec.), no. 887/06, ECHR 17/02/2015).