Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZEMENTOVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 942/02

  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 conduct of the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 942/02

  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 conduct of the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 942/02

  In particular, applicants cannot be blamed for taking full advantage of the resources afforded by national law in their defence (see YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 66).

• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 3522/04

  SALMANOV v. RUSSIA

  No evidence was adduced as to whether any measures available under national law to discipline the defaulting participants in the proceedings had been taken (see Zementova v. Russia, no. 942/02, § 70, 27 September 2007; Sidorenko v. Russia, no. 4459/03, § 34, 8 March 2007; and Sokolov v. Russia, no. 3734/02, § 40, 22 September 2005).
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 2059/16

  HASANOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  Thus, an applicant can maintain his or her victim status if he or she has already served all or part of his or her sentence (see Tapkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 66400/01, § 49, 20 September 2007, and Halil Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22922/03, § 16, 22 September 2009) and no compensation has been offered or is available in respect of the alleged violation (see Hooper v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42317/98, 21 October 2003; Menesheva v. Russia (dec.), no. 59261/00, § 3, 15 January 2004; Zementova v. Russia, no. 942/02, § 63, 27 September 2007; Birdal v. Turkey, no. 53047/99, § 24, 2 October 2007; and Arat, cited above, § 47).
• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 44432/06

  KRUK v. RUSSIA

  Whereas the Court has consistently held that an award of compensation in the "rehabilitation" proceedings cannot deprive the applicant of his status as a "victim" of violations of Article 5 of the Convention (see Pushchelenko and Others v. Russia, no. 45392/11 et al., § 27, 12 March 2015, and Shalya v. Russia, no. 27335/13, § 9, 13 November 2014), it dispensed with ruling whether or not that procedure constituted an effective remedy for a grievance under Article 6 § 1 about an excessive length of criminal proceedings (see Zementova v. Russia, no. 942/02, § 61, 27 September 2007).