Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64699/01 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MUSCI c. ITALIE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 17, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
Exceptions préliminaires rejetées (non-épuisement des voies de recours internes victime) Violation de l'art. 6-1 Incompétence en ce qui concerne les art. 13 17 et 34 (griefs nouveaux) Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MUSCI v. ITALY
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 17, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
Preliminary objections rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic proceedings victim) Violation of Art. 6-1 Lack of jurisdiction as regards Art. 13 17 and 34 (new complaints) Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention ...
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 22.01.2004 - 64699/01
- EGMR, 10.11.2004 - 64699/01
- EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64699/01
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (27)
- EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 36813/97
SCORDINO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE (N° 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64699/01
- a discrepancy in the method of calculation [between the Court's case-law and section 2 of the Pinto Act] shall not affect the general vocation of Law no. 89 of 2001 to meet the objective of awarding proper compensation for a breach of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (vocation acknowledged by the European Court in, inter alia, a decision of 27 March 2003 in Scordino v. Italy (application no. 36813/97)), and accordingly shall not allow any doubt as to the compatibility of that domestic standard with the international commitments entered into by the Italian Republic when ratifying the European Convention and the formal recognition, also at constitutional level, of the principle stated in Article 6 § 1 of that Convention...".In the Government's submission, the Court had erred in its decision Scordino v. Italy (dec.), no. 36813/97, ECHR 2003-IV) in finding that, as the Court of Cassation had always held that complaints about the amount of compensation related to questions of fact, which fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the lower courts, an appeal on points of law was not a remedy that had to be exhausted Admittedly, the Court of Cassation, which examined points of law, could not superimpose its own assessment of questions relating to the merits or the assessment of the facts and evidence on those of the lower courts.
Lastly, referring also to the information provided at the hearing in the Scordino case (no. 36813/97) the same day, the Government explained that as the amount earmarked in the budget in respect of Pinto cases had been insufficient in 2002 and 2003 it had been increased in 2004 and 2005.
- EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 48787/99
Transnistrien
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64699/01
It follows, inter alia, that a judgment in which the Court finds a violation of the Convention or its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and make all feasible reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see Assanidzé v. Georgia, cited above, § 198, and Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 487, ECHR 2004-VII). - EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78
Eckle ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64699/01
The Court also reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, for example, Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 32, §§ 69 et seq.; Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI; and Jensen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X).
- EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01
ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64699/01
Consequently, they are not covered by the admissibility decision of 20 November 2003 which marks out the limits within which the Court must place itself (see, among other authorities, mutatis mutandis, Assanidzé v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 162, ECHR 2004-II). - EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98
Enteignung eines Gemäldes in Tschechien auf Grund der Benes-Dekrete - …
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64699/01
In that connection it should be reiterated that the Convention is intended to guarantee not theoretical or illusory rights, but rights that are practical and effective (see Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 45, ECHR 2001-VIII). - EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98
SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64699/01
Referring to the judgment of Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy ([GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, §§ 255-58, ECHR 2000-VIII), the lawyers of the defence team also requested that the fees be paid directly to them. - EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98
MAESTRI c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64699/01
Furthermore, it follows from the Convention, and from Article 1 in particular, that in ratifying the Convention the Contracting States undertake to ensure that their domestic legislation is compatible with it (see Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 47, ECHR 2004-I). - EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95
DALBAN v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64699/01
The Court also reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, for example, Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 32, §§ 69 et seq.; Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI; and Jensen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X). - EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 34884/97
BOTTAZZI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03
CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64699/01
On this point the Court notes that in Poland applicants are reimbursed the court fee payable on lodging a complaint if their complaint is considered justified (see Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, to be published in ECHR 2005). - EGMR, 02.12.1999 - 32082/96
Überprüfung der Länge eines in Portugal anhängigen Strafverfahrens durch den …
- EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 58698/00
PAULINO TOMAS contre le PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 04.07.2002 - 20862/02
SLAVICEK contre la CROATIE
- EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 57984/00
ANDRASIK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 24549/03
MICHALAK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 08.10.2002 - 64359/01
FERNANDEZ-MOLINA GONZALEZ et AUTRES contre l'ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 34256/96
DI MAURO c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 35265/97
A.P. v. ITALY
- EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 62915/00
BACCHINI c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 42320/98
BELINGER v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 623/02
KUNZ c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 708/02
FEHR c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
- EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00
MIFSUD contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97
COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01
BRUSCO v. ITALY
- EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 77156/01
MILAZZO c. ITALIE
Elle rappelle en outre avoir affirmé dans neuf arrêts contre l'Italie du 29 mars 2006 (Scordino (no 1), précité, § 224, Cocchiarella, précité, Musci c. Italie [GC], no 64699/01, § 119, CEDH 2006-..., Riccardi Pizzati c. Italie [GC], no 62361/00, § 116, 29 mars 2006, Giuseppe Mostacciuolo c. Italie (no 1) [GC], no 64705/01, § 117, 29 mars 2006, Giuseppe Mostacciuolo c. Italie (no 2) [GC], no 65102/01, § 116, 29 mars 2006, Apicella c. Italie [GC], no 64890/01, § 116, 29 mars 2006, Ernestina Zullo c. Italie [GC], no 64897/01, § 121, 29 mars 2006, et Giuseppina et Orestina Procaccini c. Italie [GC], no 65075/01, § 117, 29 mars 2006) que la situation de l'Italie au sujet des retards dans l'administration de la justice n'a pas suffisamment changé pour remettre en cause l'évaluation selon laquelle l'accumulation de manquements est constitutive d'une pratique incompatible avec la Convention.