Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SCHRADE v. GEORGIA

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SCHRADE v. GEORGIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (22)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 52240/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 15016/07

  In their additional observations, the Government referred to the Court's inadmissibility decisions in the previous two cases concerning the applicant (Schrade v. Georgia (dec.), no.9289/08, 2 February 2016, and Schrade v. Georgia (dec.), no. 52240/07, 26 April 2016) and argued that the overall length of the proceedings in the current case had not gone beyond what might be considered "reasonable" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

  In their observations the Government referred to the Court's inadmissibility decisions in the two previous cases lodged by the applicant (see Schrade v. Georgia, no. 9289/08, 2 February 2016, and Schrade v. Georgia, no. 52240/07, 26 April 2016).

• EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 9289/08

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 15016/07

  In their additional observations, the Government referred to the Court's inadmissibility decisions in the previous two cases concerning the applicant (Schrade v. Georgia (dec.), no.9289/08, 2 February 2016, and Schrade v. Georgia (dec.), no. 52240/07, 26 April 2016) and argued that the overall length of the proceedings in the current case had not gone beyond what might be considered "reasonable" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

  In their observations the Government referred to the Court's inadmissibility decisions in the two previous cases lodged by the applicant (see Schrade v. Georgia, no. 9289/08, 2 February 2016, and Schrade v. Georgia, no. 52240/07, 26 April 2016).

• EGMR, 24.01.2019 - 16741/16

  FRÖHLICH v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 15016/07

  In such circumstances, while the protraction at the appeal stage cannot be attributed solely to the applicant's conduct, it can also not be held against the Government (compare Johanna Fröhlich v. Germany, no. 16741/16, § 41, 24 January 2019).

• EGMR, 27.03.2014 - 31150/09

  ERFAR-AVEF c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 15016/07

  The Court reiterates in this connection that even where civil proceedings are governed by the principle of the free disposition of the parties, which implies the parties' responsibility for the proceedings, it is incumbent on the State to organise its judicial system in such a way that the requirement of a trial within a reasonable time is complied with (see Erfar-Avef v. Greece, no. 31150/09, § 58, 27 March 2014, with further references therein; see also Gisela Müller v. Germany, no. 69584/01, § 86, 6 October 2005).
• EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 69584/01

  Rechtssache G. M. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 15016/07

  The Court reiterates in this connection that even where civil proceedings are governed by the principle of the free disposition of the parties, which implies the parties' responsibility for the proceedings, it is incumbent on the State to organise its judicial system in such a way that the requirement of a trial within a reasonable time is complied with (see Erfar-Avef v. Greece, no. 31150/09, § 58, 27 March 2014, with further references therein; see also Gisela Müller v. Germany, no. 69584/01, § 86, 6 October 2005).
• EGMR, 16.05.2019 - 45751/10

  ZIAJA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 15016/07

  In cases in which the cooperation and/or engagement of experts proves necessary, it is the responsibility of the domestic courts to ensure that the proceedings are not excessively prolonged (see Johanna Fröhlich, cited above, § 42 with further references therein; see also Stojanov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 34215/02, § 60, 31 May 2007, and Ziaja v. Poland (dec.) [Committee], no. 45751/10, § 44, 16 May 2019)).
• EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 34215/02

  STOJANOV v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 15016/07

  In cases in which the cooperation and/or engagement of experts proves necessary, it is the responsibility of the domestic courts to ensure that the proceedings are not excessively prolonged (see Johanna Fröhlich, cited above, § 42 with further references therein; see also Stojanov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 34215/02, § 60, 31 May 2007, and Ziaja v. Poland (dec.) [Committee], no. 45751/10, § 44, 16 May 2019)).
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 6571/05

  PANTALEON c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 15016/07

  At the same time, while the case did not belong to a category that by its own nature would call for a special expedition (see Sürmeli, cited above, § 133, ECHR 2006-VII), what was at stake to the applicant still required a reasonably expeditious decision, particularly given his age (compare Pantaleon v. Greece, no. 6571/05, § 25, 10 May 2007).
• EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 31266/96

  G.H. v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 15016/07

  However, this could hardly serve as a valid excuse for a total inactivity for two years, since the general principle under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is that it always remains the responsibility of the Contracting States to organise their courts in such a way as to guarantee everyone's right to the determination of their civil rights and obligations "within a reasonable time" (see Kharitonashvili v. Georgia, no. 41957/04, § 44, 10 February 2009, and G.H. v. Austria, no. 31266/96, § 20, 3 October 2000).
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75529/01

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 15016/07

  From the materials the Government submitted (see paragraph 38 above) it is unclear whether the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings had any effect whatsoever on the length of the original proceedings (see, for example, Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 106, ECHR 2006-VII, where the Court concluded that the Government had failed to demonstrate that the possibility of complaining about length of proceedings to the Federal Constitutional Court could lead to them being expedited; see also, mutatis mutandis, Belinger v. Slovenia (dec.), 42320/98, 2 October 2001).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97

  COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 55870/00

  EFIMENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 36545/02

  MOROZ AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 30.04.2020 - 72060/17

  KEANEY v. IRELAND
• EGMR - 79950/13 (anhängig)

  CABAJ v. POLAND
• EGMR, 31.08.2018 - 35142/15

  BALOGH AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 15152/12

  VEISS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 24724/03

  CONSTANTIN OPREA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 18010/06

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 38736/05

  KVANTALIANI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 06.03.2018 - 39485/14

  PECENKO v. SLOVENIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.09.2026 - 31727/23

  NADASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  In those circumstances, and having regard to the absence of any effective domestic remedy in this regard (see, among other authorities, Schrade v. Georgia [Committee], no. 15016/07, §§ 41-42, 11 March 2021, and I.B. v. Georgia [Committee], no. 4639/23, § 18, 11 July 2024), the Court does not consider it unreasonable that the applicant waited for two years before lodging the present application (see, for example, Omarov v. Georgia [Committee], no. 25967/23, § 8, 7 April 2026, with further references).
• EGMR, 09.12.2025 - 24060/23

  TORDIA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  The Court further refers to its consistent case-law concerning the lack of a specific preventive remedy capable of expediting proceedings in the Georgian legal system and the absence of a compensatory remedy (see Schrade v. Georgia [Committee], no. 15016/07, §§ 41-42, 11 March 2021, and I.B. v. Georgia [Committee], no. 4639/23, § 18, 11 July 2024).
• EGMR, 11.02.2025 - 45681/22

  ZAALISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  In the absence of effective domestic remedies (see, for illustrative purposes, Schrade v. Georgia [Committee], no. 15016/07, §§ 41-42, 11 March 2021; Kadzanaia v. Georgia [Committee], no. 27178/21, §§ 9-12, 21 March 2024; Mgeladze v. Georgia [Committee], no. 35413/19, §§ 8-10, 16 May 2024; and I.B. v. Georgia [Committee], 4639/23, §§ 18-19, 11 July 2024) and while noting that the applicant does not appear to have had enquired, at least in written form, about the progress of the cassation proceedings for over five years, the Court sees no grounds on which to absolve the State of its responsibility for the stagnation of the proceedings before the Supreme Court.

• EGMR, 16.05.2024 - 35413/19

  MGELADZE v. GEORGIA

  As far as disciplinary action is concerned, an identical argument to that put forward by the Government in the present case was previously examined and dismissed by the Court in the case of Schrade v. Georgia ([Committee], no. 15016/07, §§ 41-42, 11 March 2021).
• EGMR, 21.03.2024 - 27178/21

  KADZANAIA v. GEORGIA

  As for the possibility of instituting disciplinary proceedings against the judiciary, the Court has already found that the disciplinary proceedings suggested by the Government is not an effective remedy (see Schrade v. Georgia [Committee], no. 15016/07, § 42, 11 March 2021).
• EGMR, 07.04.2026 - 25967/23

  OMAROV v. GEORGIA

  The Court further refers to its consistent case-law concerning the lack of a specific preventive remedy capable of expediting proceedings in the Georgian legal system and the absence of a compensatory remedy (see Schrade v. Georgia [Committee], no. 15016/07, §§ 41-42, 11 March 2021, and I.B., cited above, § 18).
• EGMR, 11.07.2024 - 4639/23

  I.B. v. GEORGIA

  As for the disciplinary action, the argument regarding its effectiveness was previously examined and dismissed by the Court in the case of Schrade v. Georgia ([Committee], no. 15016/07, §§ 41-42, 11 March 2021).
• EGMR, 24.06.2021 - 57008/18

  TAUTERS v. LATVIA

  Therefore, the Court considers that this period of inactivity of two years is not sufficiently serious to warrant the conclusion that the total duration of the proceedings in the circumstances of the present case was excessive (compare Pretto and Others v. Italy, 8 December 1983, § 37, Series A no. 71, and contrast Schrade v. Georgia [Committee], no. 15016/07, §§ 47-54, 11 March 2021).