Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAMIC c. SLOVENIE (N° 2) [Extraits]

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Non-violation de l'art. 6-1 Violation de l'art. 13 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAMIC v. SLOVENIA (No. 2)

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  No Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 75778/01

  Article 13 of the Convention guarantees an "effective remedy before a national authority" to everyone who claims that his rights and freedoms under the Convention have been violated (see Klass and Others v. Germany, judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 29, § 64).

  The Court further reiterates that the existence of an actual breach of another provision of the Convention (a "substantive" provision) is not a prerequisite for the application of Article 13 (see the Klass and Others judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 29, § 64).

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 75778/01

  Hence, the effect of this provision is to require the existence of an effective remedy to deal with the substance of an "arguable complaint" and to grant appropriate relief (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 75778/01

  In Eckle v. Germany (judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 33, § 73) the Court said:.

 
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 75778/01

  "In criminal matters, the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 § 1 begins to run as soon as a person is "charged"; this may occur on a date prior to the case coming before the trial court (see, for example, the Deweer judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 22, par. 42), such as the date of arrest, the date when the person concerned was officially notified that he would be prosecuted or the date when preliminary investigations were opened (see the Wemhoff judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, pp. 26-27, par. 19, the Neumeister judgment of the same date, Series A no. 8, p. 41, par. 18, and the Ringeisen judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 45, par. 110).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 75778/01

  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 (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 75778/01

  "In criminal matters, the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 § 1 begins to run as soon as a person is "charged"; this may occur on a date prior to the case coming before the trial court (see, for example, the Deweer judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 22, par. 42), such as the date of arrest, the date when the person concerned was officially notified that he would be prosecuted or the date when preliminary investigations were opened (see the Wemhoff judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, pp. 26-27, par. 19, the Neumeister judgment of the same date, Series A no. 8, p. 41, par. 18, and the Ringeisen judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 45, par. 110).
• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 75778/01

  "In criminal matters, the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 § 1 begins to run as soon as a person is "charged"; this may occur on a date prior to the case coming before the trial court (see, for example, the Deweer judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 22, par. 42), such as the date of arrest, the date when the person concerned was officially notified that he would be prosecuted or the date when preliminary investigations were opened (see the Wemhoff judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, pp. 26-27, par. 19, the Neumeister judgment of the same date, Series A no. 8, p. 41, par. 18, and the Ringeisen judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 45, par. 110).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 75778/01

  "In criminal matters, the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 § 1 begins to run as soon as a person is "charged"; this may occur on a date prior to the case coming before the trial court (see, for example, the Deweer judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 22, par. 42), such as the date of arrest, the date when the person concerned was officially notified that he would be prosecuted or the date when preliminary investigations were opened (see the Wemhoff judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, pp. 26-27, par. 19, the Neumeister judgment of the same date, Series A no. 8, p. 41, par. 18, and the Ringeisen judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 45, par. 110).
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 75778/01

  Therefore, the civil limb of the proceedings remained closely linked to the criminal limb (see, mutatis mutandis, Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 62, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 75778/01

  However, Article 13 requires a remedy in domestic law only in respect of an alleged grievance which is an arguable one in terms of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 06.05.2021 - C-791/19

  Generalanwalt Tanchev: Der Gerichtshof sollte urteilen, dass das polnische Gesetz …

  83 Vgl. Urteil vom 27. Juli 2006, Mamic/Slowenien (Nr. 2) (CE:ECHR:2006:0727JUD007577801, §§ 23 und 24).
• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 42180/19

  JAKUTAVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  In Rousounidou, although the first set of proceedings were criminal, the applicability of the criminal limb of Article 6 was dismissed (by a majority) on the grounds that the question of reimbursement of legal costs did not concern the determination of a criminal charge, without any explanation as to why it was the second and not the first set of proceedings which should have determined the limb of applicability of Article 6. In this regard, Rousounidou found some support in two earlier cases, namely, Mamic v. Slovenia (no. 2) (no. 75778/01, 27 July 2006, where the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been discontinued on account of being time-barred, and no violation of Article 6 § 1 was found), and Topolovcan (cited above), wherein it is similarly stated that the reimbursement of legal costs does not concern the determination of a criminal charge.
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 14.07.2022 - C-682/20

  Les Mousquetaires und ITM Entreprises/ Kommission

  Diesem Zweck entsprechend beginnt der Zeitraum, der bei der Prüfung der Angemessenheit der Verfahrensdauer zu berücksichtigen ist, mit dem Tag, an dem eine Person angeklagt wird (…vgl. EGMR, 27. Juni 1968, Neumeister/Österreich, CE:ECHR:1968:0627JUD000193663, Rn. 18), oder zu einem früheren Zeitpunkt, z. B. dem Tag der Eröffnung der Voruntersuchung (…vgl. EGMR, 16. Juli 1971, Ringeisen/Österreich, CE:ECHR:1971:0716JUD000261465, Rn. 110, auf das der Gerichtshof im Urteil LMV Bezug genommen hat), wobei der Zeitpunkt zu berücksichtigen ist, zu dem der Kläger Kenntnis von der Anklage erlangt hat, oder der, ab dem seine Situation durch die im Rahmen einer Untersuchung oder eines Strafverfahrens getroffenen Maßnahmen erheblich berührt ist (vgl. EGMR, 27. Juli 2006, Mamic/Slowenien [Nr. 2], CE:ECHR:2006:0727JUD007577801, Rn. 23 und 24), und 28. Mai2019, Liblik u. a./Estland (…CE:ECHR:2019:0528JUD000017315, Rn. 94).

 
• EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 38744/21

  ROUSOUNIDOU v. CYPRUS

  The Court too, considers, that the issue of costs does not fall under the notion of a "criminal charge" within the autonomous meaning of Article 6 § 1. It remains to be seen however, whether the issue of the determination of the legal costs in the present case fell within the scope of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil limb as the applicant suggests (see, mutatis mutandis, Mamic v. Slovenia (no. 2), no. 75778/01, §§ 27-30, ECHR 2006-X (extracts) where that issue was addressed in the context of a complaint about the length of proceedings and Topolovcan v. Croatia (dec.), 67405/10, § 19, 11 December 2012 concerning allegedly erroneous dismissal of the applicant's claim for costs and expenses incurred in criminal proceedings).
• EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 45190/07

  JEANS v. CROATIA

  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, for example, Mamic v. Slovenia (no. 2), no. 75778/01, § 35, ECHR 2006-X (extracts); and Wierciszewska v. Poland, no.41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003).
• EGMR, 30.04.2020 - 77005/12

  SUEZ FACILITIES BELGIUM NV c. BELGIQUE

  Eu égard à sa jurisprudence (Mamic c. Slovénie (no 2), no 75778/01, § 24, CEDH 2006-X (extraits), et McFarlane c. Irlande [GC], no 31333/06, § 143, 10 septembre 2010), la Cour est d'avis que la période litigieuse doit être calculée à partir de la date à laquelle la requérante s'est vue notifier l'accusation selon laquelle elle avait commis une infraction dans le cadre de la procédure en cause.
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 67405/10

  TOPOLOVCAN v. CROATIA

  Therefore, this "civil limb" of the proceedings remained closely linked to the criminal limb (see, mutatis mutandis, Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 62, ECHR 2002-I, and Mamic v. Slovenia (no. 2), no. 75778/01, § 27, ECHR 2006-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 30.08.2011 - 36597/06

  SOBOTA v. SLOVENIA

  Thus, the costs proceedings cannot be regarded as an autonomous set of proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, Mamic v. Slovenia (no. 2), no. 75778/01, §§ 27-29, ECHR 2006-X (extracts).