Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KINGSLEY c. ROYAUME-UNI

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

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KINGSLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.09.1999 - 35605/97
• EGMR, 07.11.2000 - 35605/97
• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 35605/97

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 35605/97

  The situation is rather similar to that in Kudla v. Poland ([GC], no. 30210/96, § 147, ECHR 2000-XI), where the Court stated that besides a violation of Article 6 a separate violation of Article 13 is possible in cases of length of proceedings if there is no effective remedy at the domestic level.
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 35605/97

  This being so and having regard to the nature of the breach found, the Court considers that in relation to this head of claim the judgment of 22 October 1981 constitutes in itself adequate just satisfaction..." See also, for a decision based on very special grounds, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, p. 63, § 219].
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 35605/97

  Otherwise, if the Court does not want to follow the "loss of opportunity" approach, it can always acknowledge the existence of non-pecuniary damage arising from uncertainty (see Guincho v. Portugal, judgment of 10 July 1984, Series A no. 81), anxiety (see Keegan v. Ireland, judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290), feelings of helplessness and frustration (see Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (Article 50), judgment of 31 October 1995, Series A no. 330-B) or damage to the applicant's reputation (see Doustaly, cited above) caused by the violation.

 
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 35605/97

  As there was no causal connection between the violation and the alleged pecuniary damage, and in order to avoid any speculation as to the possible outcome of the proceedings, the solution consisting in acknowledging that the applicant sustained non-pecuniary damage in the form of "loss of real opportunities", which has been adopted by the Court in a number of cases [See, among other authorities, Colozza v. Italy, judgment of 12 February 1985, Series A no. 89; Bönisch v. Austria (Article 50), judgment of 2 June 1986, Series A no. 10; de Geouffre de la Pradelle v. France, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 253-B; Delta v. France, judgment of 19 December 1990, Series A no. 191-A; and, more recently, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, ECHR 1999-II, and Dulaurans v. France, no. 34553/97, 21 March 2000, the last two concerning specifically the guarantees of a fair trial (Article 6 § 1 of the Convention)], seems to me to be an adequate and fair solution.
• EGMR, 19.12.1990 - 11444/85

  DELTA c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 35605/97

  As there was no causal connection between the violation and the alleged pecuniary damage, and in order to avoid any speculation as to the possible outcome of the proceedings, the solution consisting in acknowledging that the applicant sustained non-pecuniary damage in the form of "loss of real opportunities", which has been adopted by the Court in a number of cases [See, among other authorities, Colozza v. Italy, judgment of 12 February 1985, Series A no. 89; Bönisch v. Austria (Article 50), judgment of 2 June 1986, Series A no. 10; de Geouffre de la Pradelle v. France, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 253-B; Delta v. France, judgment of 19 December 1990, Series A no. 191-A; and, more recently, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, ECHR 1999-II, and Dulaurans v. France, no. 34553/97, 21 March 2000, the last two concerning specifically the guarantees of a fair trial (Article 6 § 1 of the Convention)], seems to me to be an adequate and fair solution.
• EGMR, 24.02.1983 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 35605/97

  Indeed, some breaches of procedural rules, of a kind known as "technicalities", or other cases which have not significantly affected an applicant's situation can always constitute exceptions [In Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom (Article 50), judgment of 24 February 1983, Series A no. 59, the Court held (pp. 7-8, § 14): "... Mr Dudgeon should be regarded as having achieved his objective of securing a change in the law of Northern Ireland.
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 2178/64

  Matznetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 35605/97

  As there was no causal connection between the violation and the alleged pecuniary damage, and in order to avoid any speculation as to the possible outcome of the proceedings, the solution consisting in acknowledging that the applicant sustained non-pecuniary damage in the form of "loss of real opportunities", which has been adopted by the Court in a number of cases [See, among other authorities, Colozza v. Italy, judgment of 12 February 1985, Series A no. 89; Bönisch v. Austria (Article 50), judgment of 2 June 1986, Series A no. 10; de Geouffre de la Pradelle v. France, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 253-B; Delta v. France, judgment of 19 December 1990, Series A no. 191-A; and, more recently, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, ECHR 1999-II, and Dulaurans v. France, no. 34553/97, 21 March 2000, the last two concerning specifically the guarantees of a fair trial (Article 6 § 1 of the Convention)], seems to me to be an adequate and fair solution.
• EGMR, 10.07.1984 - 8990/80

  GUINCHO c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 35605/97

  Otherwise, if the Court does not want to follow the "loss of opportunity" approach, it can always acknowledge the existence of non-pecuniary damage arising from uncertainty (see Guincho v. Portugal, judgment of 10 July 1984, Series A no. 81), anxiety (see Keegan v. Ireland, judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290), feelings of helplessness and frustration (see Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (Article 50), judgment of 31 October 1995, Series A no. 330-B) or damage to the applicant's reputation (see Doustaly, cited above) caused by the violation.
• EGMR, 21.03.2000 - 34553/97

  DULAURANS c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 35605/97

  As there was no causal connection between the violation and the alleged pecuniary damage, and in order to avoid any speculation as to the possible outcome of the proceedings, the solution consisting in acknowledging that the applicant sustained non-pecuniary damage in the form of "loss of real opportunities", which has been adopted by the Court in a number of cases [See, among other authorities, Colozza v. Italy, judgment of 12 February 1985, Series A no. 89; Bönisch v. Austria (Article 50), judgment of 2 June 1986, Series A no. 10; de Geouffre de la Pradelle v. France, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 253-B; Delta v. France, judgment of 19 December 1990, Series A no. 191-A; and, more recently, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, ECHR 1999-II, and Dulaurans v. France, no. 34553/97, 21 March 2000, the last two concerning specifically the guarantees of a fair trial (Article 6 § 1 of the Convention)], seems to me to be an adequate and fair solution.
• EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

  HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 35605/97

  Having regard to all the circumstances, and in accordance with its normal practice in civil and criminal cases as regards violations of Article 6 § 1 caused by a lack of objective or structural independence and impartiality, the Court does not consider it appropriate to award financial compensation to the applicant in respect of loss of procedural opportunity or any distress, loss or damage allegedly flowing from the outcome of the domestic proceedings (see, inter alia, Hauschildt v. Denmark, judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 24, § 58; Langborger v. Sweden, judgment of 22 June 1989, Series A no. 155, p. 19, §§ 49 and 51; Demicoli v. Malta, judgment of 27 August 1991, Series A no. 210, p. 20, § 48; Holm v. Sweden, judgment of 25 November 1993, Series A no. 279-A, p. 17, § 36; Findlay v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 February 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I, p. 284, § 88; De Haan v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 August 1997, Reports 1997-IV, p. 1394, §§ 59-60; Coyne v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 September 1997, Reports 1997-V, p. 1856, § 64; and Hood v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27267/95, § 86, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 13057/87

  DEMICOLI v. MALTA
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 27267/95

  HOOD c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 25.11.1993 - 14191/88

  HOLM v. SWEDEN

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 10.04.2018 - C-89/17

  Generalanwalt Bobek: Kehrt ein Unionsbürger in seinen Herkunftsmitgliedstaat …

  76 Urteile des EGMR vom 28. Mai 2002, Kingsley/Vereinigtes Königreich, CE:ECHR:2002:0528JUD003560597, §§ 32 bis 34, und vom 14. November 2006, Tsfayo/Vereinigtes Königreich, CE:ECHR:2006:1114JUD006086000, §§ 46 bis 49. In Bezug auf Art. 13 EMRK, vgl. Urteile vom 27. September 1999, Smith und Grady/Vereinigtes Königreich, CE:ECHR:1999:0927JUD003398596, §§ 135 bis 139, und vom 8. Juli 2003, Hatton u. a./Vereinigtes Königreich, CE:ECHR:2003:0708JUD003602297, §§ 140 bis 142.