Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BELINGER v. SLOVENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 39 MRK
  Struck out of the list (friendly settlement) (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 42320/98
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 42320/98

Wird zitiert von ... (11)

• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64886/01

  COCCHIARELLA v. ITALY

  Indeed, it cannot be ruled out that excessive delays in an action for compensation will render the remedy inadequate (see Paulino Tomás v. Portugal (dec.), no. 58698/00, ECHR 2003-VIII; Belinger v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 42320/98, 2 October 2001; and, mutatis mutandis, Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 156, ECHR 2004-XII).
• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 65102/01

  GIUSEPPE MOSTACCIUOLO v. ITALY (No. 2)

  Indeed, it cannot be ruled out that excessive delays in an action for compensation will affect whether the remedy is an adequate one (see Paulino Tomas v. Portugal (dec.), no. 58698/00, ECHR 2003-VIII; Belinger v. Slovenia, (dec.) no. 42320/98, 2 October 2001; and, mutatis mutandis, Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 156, ECHR 2004-XII).
• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 62361/00

  RICCARDI PIZZATI c. ITALIE

  On ne peut en effet exclure que la lenteur excessive du recours indemnitaire n'en affecte le caractère adéquat (Paulino Tomas c. Portugal (déc.), no 58698/00, CEDH 2003-VIII, Belinger c. Slovénie, (déc.), no 42320/98, 2 octobre 2001 et, mutatis mutandis, Öneryıldız c. Turquie [GC], no 48939/99, § 156, CEDH 2004-XII).

 
• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64897/01

  ERNESTINA ZULLO c. ITALIE

  On ne peut en effet exclure que la lenteur excessive du recours indemnitaire n'en affecte le caractère adéquat (Paulino Tomas c. Portugal (déc.), no 58698/00, CEDH 2003-VIII, Belinger c. Slovénie, (déc.), no 42320/98, 2 octobre 2001 et, mutatis mutandis, Öneryıldız c. Turquie [GC], no 48939/99, § 156, CEDH 2004-XII).
• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 65075/01

  GIUSEPPINA AND ORESTINA PROCACCINI v. ITALY

  Indeed, it cannot be ruled out that excessive delays in an action for compensation will affect whether the remedy is an adequate one (see Paulino Tomas v. Portugal (dec.), no. 58698/00, ECHR 2003-VIII; Belinger v. Slovenia, (dec.) no. 42320/98, 2 October 2001; and, mutatis mutandis, Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 156, ECHR 2004-XII).
• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64705/01

  GIUSEPPE MOSTACCIUOLO v. ITALY (No. 1)

  On ne peut en effet exclure que la lenteur excessive du recours indemnitaire n'en affecte le caractère adéquat (Paulino Tomas c. Portugal (déc.), no 58698/00, CEDH 2003-VIII, Belinger c. Slovénie, (déc.), no 42320/98, 2 octobre 2001 et, mutatis mutandis, Öneryıldız c. Turquie [GC], no 48939/99, § 156, CEDH 2004-XII).
• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64699/01

  MUSCI v. ITALY

  Indeed, it cannot be ruled out that excessive delays in an action for compensation will affect whether the remedy is an adequate one (see Paulino Tomas v. Portugal (dec.), no. 58698/00, ECHR 2003-VIII; Belinger v. Slovenia, (dec.) no. 42320/98, 2 October 2001; and, mutatis mutandis, Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 156, ECHR 2004-XII).
• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64890/01

  APICELLA v. ITALY

  Indeed, it cannot be ruled out that excessive delays in an action for compensation will affect whether the remedy is an adequate one (see Paulino Tomas v. Portugal (dec.), no. 58698/00, ECHR 2003-VIII; Belinger v. Slovenia, (dec.) no. 42320/98, 2 October 2001; and, mutatis mutandis, Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 156, ECHR 2004-XII).
• EGMR, 16.09.2004 - 66491/01

  GRASSER v. GERMANY

  A remedy which will not bear fruit in sufficient time cannot be regarded as effective (see Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 22, § 47; Belinger v. Slovenia, no. 42320/98, 2 October 2001).
• EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 44581/98

  GERDEN v. SLOVENIA

  The present application is thus similar to the cases of Belinger and Lukenda (see Belinger v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 42320/98, 2 October 2001, and Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, ECHR 2005-X, see also Grzincic v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, judgment, 3 May 2007).
• EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 69319/12

  HAJRUDINOVIC v. SLOVENIA