Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LAUNIKARI v. FINLAND

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

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 34120/96
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 34120/96

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.06.1990 - 11761/85

  Obermeier ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 34120/96

  It further reiterates that an employee who considers that he has been wrongly suspended or dismissed by his employer has an important personal interest in promptly securing a judicial decision on the lawfulness of that measure, since employment disputes by their nature call for expeditious decisions, in view of what is at stake for the person concerned, who through dismissal loses his means of subsistence (see the Obermeier v. Austria judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A no. 179, § 72, the Caleffi v. Italy judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 206-B, § 17, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 45, ECHR 2000, unreported).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 34120/96

  The Court recalls that the proceedings, which took place prior to the ratification of the Convention by Finland on 10 May 1990, fall outside the Court's jurisdiction ratione temporis, although they may be taken into account as background to the issue (see the Hokkanen v. Finland judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A, § 53, and the Kerojärvi v. Finland judgment of 19 July 1995, Series A no. 322, §§ 31, 41-42).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97

  COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 34120/96

  The Court reiterates that the "reasonableness" of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria; the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities, and what was at stake for the applicant in dispute (see, among other authorities, Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 19, ECHR 2000).
• EGMR, 19.07.1995 - 17506/90

  KEROJÄRVI v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 34120/96

  The Court recalls that the proceedings, which took place prior to the ratification of the Convention by Finland on 10 May 1990, fall outside the Court's jurisdiction ratione temporis, although they may be taken into account as background to the issue (see the Hokkanen v. Finland judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A, § 53, and the Kerojärvi v. Finland judgment of 19 July 1995, Series A no. 322, §§ 31, 41-42).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 22.03.2001 - C-270/99

  Z / Parlament

  48: - Vgl. EuGHMR, Urteile vom 8. Dezember 1999, Pellegrin/Frankreich, Beschwerde Nr. 28541/95, Entscheidung über die Zulässigkeit vom 4. Mai 2000, Launikari/Finnland, und Urteil vom 5. Oktober 2000, Beschwerde Nr. 34120/96, und Entscheidung über die Zulässigkeit vom 11. Juli 2000, Kepka/Polen, Beschwerden Nrn. 31439/96 und 35123/97.49: - Urteil De Compte/Parlament (zitiert in Fußnote 10, Randnr. 94).
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 61557/00

  ANDRIA OY AND KARI KARANKO v. FINLAND

  Thus the applicants" case did not belong to a category that by its nature calls for special expedition (such as custody of children (see Hokkanen v. Finland, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A, § 72), civil status and capacity (see Mikulic v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 44, ECHR 2002-I) or labour disputes (see Frydlender, cited above, § 45, Launikari v. Finland, no. 34120/96, § 36, 5 October 2000)).
• EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 5952/03

  EKHOLM v. FINLAND

  The Court has also held that certain cases belong to a category that by its nature calls for special expedition (such as custody of children (see Hokkanen v. Finland, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A, § 72), civil status and capacity (see Mikulic v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 44, ECHR 2002-I) or labour disputes (see Frydlender, cited above, § 45, Launikari v. Finland, no. 34120/96, § 36, 5 October 2000).