Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BASIC v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection allowed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BASIC c. AUTRICHE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Exception préliminaire retenue (non-épuisement des voies de recours internes) (französisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 16.03.1999 - 29800/96
• EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 29800/96

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

• OLG Köln, 27.10.2004 - 2 Wx 29/04

  Voraussetzungen bei Entlassung eines Testamentsvollstreckers

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 29800/96

  30/04/2001.
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 29800/96

  Or à aucun moment de la procédure il n'a exercé ce recours, et il est donc resté en défaut de donner aux autorités internes la possibilité que l'article 35 § 1 de la Convention entend offrir aux Etats contractants, à savoir celle de prévenir ou redresser la violation alléguée (arrêt Cardot c. France du 19 mars 1991, série A no 200, p. 19, § 36).
• EGMR, 02.12.1999 - 32082/96

  Überprüfung der Länge eines in Portugal anhängigen Strafverfahrens durch den …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 29800/96

  Le Gouvernement arguë que la décision rendue par la Cour dans l'affaire Tomé Mota c. Portugal (déc.), no 32082/96, CEDH 1999-IX, corrobore son avis selon lequel une requête dirigée contre le silence de l'administration constituait un recours effectif.

• EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 48185/07

  PREZEC v. CROATIA

  The Court has already held that where an applicant had means at his or her disposal to use a remedy which would speed up the proceedings, but failed to use them, a complaint about the length of proceedings is inadmissible under Article 35 § 1 for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and that it had to be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see Sirc v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 44580/98, 16 May 2002, and, mutatis mutandis, Stajcar v. Croatia (dec.), no. 46279/99, 20 January 2000; Basic v. Austria, no. 29800/96, §§ 34-40, ECHR 2001-I and Pallanich v. Austria, no. 30160/96, §§ 27-33, 30 January 2001).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 34983/02

  NOWICKY v. AUSTRIA

  As to the question whether the applicant has exhausted domestic remedies, the Court reiterates that an application under Article 132 of the Federal Constitution against the administration's failure to decide (Säumnisbeschwerde) constitutes, in principle, an effective remedy which has to be used in respect of complaints about the length of administrative proceedings (Basic v. Austria, no. 29800/96, §§ 39-40, ECHR 2001-I).
• EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 43603/05

  RAUS AND RAUS-RADOVANOVIC v. CROATIA

  In these circumstances, given that the applicants had means at their disposal to speed up the proceedings, but failed to use them, this complaint is inadmissible under Article 35 § 1 for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see Stajcar v. Croatia (dec.), no. 46279/99, 20 January 2000, Sirc v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 44580/98, 16 May 2002, and, mutatis mutandis, Basic v. Austria, no. 29800/96, §§ 34-40, ECHR 2001-I and Pallanich v. Austria, no. 30160/96, §§ 27-33, 30 January 2001).