Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BARISIC v. SLOVENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Barisic v. Slovenia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 32600/05

  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).

  Thirdly, while the factors to which reference should be made when assessing the reasonableness of the length of proceedings are clear (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, ECHR 2000-VII) a far stricter analysis of each factor should be conducted before a violation is found.

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 32600/05

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 06.05.1981 - 7759/77

  Buchholz ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 32600/05

  This approach can be found in cases, such as, Buchholz v. Germany, 6 May 1981, Series A no. 42; Malicka-Wasowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 41413/98, 5 April 2001; and Potas v. Poland (dec.), no. 42615/98, 1 October 2002.

• EGMR, 03.01.2013 - 33347/07

  GROBIN v. SLOVENIA

  Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having regard to its case-law on the subject (see Barisic v. Slovenia, no. 32600/05, §§ 45-47, 18 October 2012; Stojc v. Slovenia, no. 20159/06, §§ 22-25, 18 October 2012; Bizjak Jagodic v. Slovenia, no. 42274/02, §§ 16-18, 6 April 2006 and Rodic v. Slovenia, no. 38528/02, §§ 18-20, 27 April 2006) the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable-time" requirement.
• EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 42236/05

  HARTMAN v. SLOVENIA

  In my separate opinion in Barisic v. Slovenia (32600/05) I have set out the reasons why I cannot accept the Court's current "broad brush" approach to "length of proceedings" claims.
• EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 20159/06

  STOJC v. SLOVENIA

  In my separate opinion in Barisic v. Slovenia (32600/05) I have set out the reasons why I cannot accept the Court's current "broad brush" approach to "length of proceedings" claims.
• EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 44135/06

  DANIJEL PECNIK v. SLOVENIA

  In my separate opinion in Barisic v. Slovenia (32600/05) I have set out the reasons why I cannot accept the Court's current "broad brush" approach to "length of proceedings" claims.
• EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 50719/06

  BJELIC v. SLOVENIA

  In my separate opinion in Barisic v. Slovenia (32600/05) I have set out the reasons why I cannot accept the Court's current "broad brush" approach to "length of proceedings" claims.