Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NOVOVIC v. MONTENEGRO

  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)

  Novovic v. Montenegro

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (20)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75529/01

  Verschleppter Prozess - Mann prozessiert seit 16 Jahren um Entschädigung nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 13210/05

  The decisive question in assessing the effectiveness of a remedy concerning a complaint about the length of proceedings is whether or not it was possible for the applicant to be provided with direct and speedy redress, rather than with indirect protection of the rights guaranteed under Article 6 (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 195, ECHR 2006, and Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 101, 8 June 2006).
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 13210/05

  The Court reiterates that the effectiveness of a particular remedy is normally assessed with reference to the date on which the application was lodged (see, for example, Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001-V (extracts)), this rule, however, being subject to exceptions which may be justified by the specific circumstances of each case (see Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 13210/05

  In particular, a remedy of this sort shall be "effective" if it can be used either to expedite a decision by the courts dealing with the case or to provide the litigant with adequate redress for delays which have already occurred (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 157-159, ECHR 2000-XI; Mifsud v. France (dec.), [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII; and Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], cited above, § 99).

• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

  CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 13210/05

  These laws also contained transitional provisions bringing within the jurisdiction of domestic courts the cases already pending before this Court (see Grzincic v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 48, 3 May 2007; Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, § 20, ECHR 2005-V; and Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

  BRUSCO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 13210/05

  These laws also contained transitional provisions bringing within the jurisdiction of domestic courts the cases already pending before this Court (see Grzincic v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 48, 3 May 2007; Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, § 20, ECHR 2005-V; and Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 28743/03

  MELNITCHOUK c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 13210/05

  The Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by the national courts unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I), nor is it its task to act as a court of appeal in respect of the decisions taken by domestic courts (see Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX).
• EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01

  NOGOLICA c. CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 13210/05

  The Court reiterates that the effectiveness of a particular remedy is normally assessed with reference to the date on which the application was lodged (see, for example, Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001-V (extracts)), this rule, however, being subject to exceptions which may be justified by the specific circumstances of each case (see Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 26867/02

  GRZINCIC c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 13210/05

  These laws also contained transitional provisions bringing within the jurisdiction of domestic courts the cases already pending before this Court (see Grzincic v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 48, 3 May 2007; Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, § 20, ECHR 2005-V; and Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 17271/04

  CVETKOVIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 13210/05

  § 51, 1 December 2009, as well as Cvetkovic v. Serbia, no. 17271/04, § 41, 10 June 2008).
• EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 29908/05

  SIMIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 13210/05

  The Court has already found a period of four years and one month for three levels of jurisdiction in proceedings concerning reinstatement excessive and in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Simic v. Serbia, no. 29908/05, §§ 16 and 21, 24 November 2009).
• EGMR, 14.09.2016 - 49337/07

  MIJUSKOVIC AGAINST MONTENEGRO
• EGMR, 13.07.2004 - 55383/00

  GUZICKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 22381/05

  GEORGI GEORGIEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 29907/05

  STANKOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …
• EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06

  McFarlane v. Ireland
• EuGH, 16.08.1989 - 57/89

  Vorläufiger Rechtsschutz - Einstweilige Anordnungen - Voraussetzungen - …
• EuGH - 69/82 (Verfahren ohne Entscheidung erledigt)

  Kommission / Frankreich
• EuGH - 72/82 (Verfahren ohne Entscheidung erledigt)

  Rat / Parlament
• RG, 01.03.1898 - 15/98

  Urkundeneigenschast schriftlicher Auskünfte eines gewerbsmäßigen …

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 32104/06

  COJOCARU v. ROMANIA

  Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum under Article 41 (see Novovic v. Montenegro and Serbia, no. 13210/05, § 62, 23 October 2012).
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 28359/05

  MILIC v. MONTENEGRO AND SERBIA

  Having regard to the particular circumstances of the instant case as set out above, the Court considers that the applicant was not obliged to exhaust this particular avenue of redress (see, mutatis mutandis, Novovic v. Montenegro, 13210/05, §§ 40-44, 23 October 2012 (not yet final); Vincic and Others v. Serbia, no. 44698/06 et seq.
• EGMR, 01.02.2017 - 49320/07

  STAKIC AND 2 OTHER CASES AGAINST MONTENEGRO

  13210/05.

• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 59129/15

  VUCELJIC v. MONTENEGRO

  The constitutional appeal must therefore be considered in principle an effective domestic remedy for complaints relating to the length of proceedings as well, so that the earlier case-law in this regard is no longer applicable (see, for example, Boucke, cited above, § 79; Stakić v. Montenegro, no. 49320/07, § 41, 2 October 2012; and Novović v. Montenegro and Serbia, no. 13210/05, § 45, 23 October 2012).
• EGMR, 07.04.2026 - 25967/23

  OMAROV v. GEORGIA

  The Court also reiterates that reinstatement proceedings are of "crucial importance" to plaintiffs and must be dealt with "expeditiously" (see Novović v. Montenegro and Serbia, no. 13210/05, § 51, 23 October 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 15.02.2024 - 2890/21

  BAGOJE v. MONTENEGRO

  The Court, therefore, makes no award (see, mutatis mutandis, Boucke v. Montenegro, no. 26945/06, § 99, 21 February 2012, and Novović v. Montenegro and Serbia, no. 13210/05, § 62, 23 October 2012).
• EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 40080/08

  [ENG]

  It is also observed that the applicant cannot be required to avail himself of this avenue of redress at this stage, as its use had long become time-barred in his case (see paragraphs 22 and 25 above; see also, mutatis mutandis, Novovic v. Montenegro and Serbia, no. 13210/05, § 43, 23 October 2012, and Milic v. Montenegro and Serbia, no. 28359/05, § 57, 11 December 2012).