Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FORTUNAT v. SLOVENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) ...

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.12.2007 - 38350/02

  TOMAZIC v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 42977/04

  For relevant domestic law see Tomazic v. Slovenia (no. 38350/02, 13 December 2007).

  Having regard to the 2006 Act as in force at the material time (see by contrast, Žurej v. Slovenia, (dec.), no. 10386/03, § 17, 16 March 2010), the applicant had no possibility to claim compensation for the delays incurred in the proceedings (see mutatis mutandis, Tomazic v. Slovenia, no. 38350/02, §§ 41-45, 13 December 2007 and Lesjak v. Slovenia, no. 33946/03, §§ 54-55, 21 July 2009).

  Having regard to the foregoing and to its case-law on the subject (see Rumpf v. Germany, no. 46344/06, §§ 41-46, 2 September 2010, Tomazic v. Slovenia, no. 38350/02, §§ 54-61, 13 December 2007, Jazbec v. Slovenia, no. 31489/02, §§ 64-69, 14 December 2006), the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.

• EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 42224/04

  PODBELSEK BRACIC v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 42977/04

  I disagree with the majority's finding of a violation of the applicant's right to a fair trial within "a reasonable time" for the reasons given already in my separate opinion in the case Podbelsek Bracic v. Slovenia, no. 42224/04.
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 42977/04

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 42977/04

  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 the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 26867/02

  GRZINCIC c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 42977/04

  Following the Court's findings in the cases Grzincic v. Slovenia (no. 26867/02, § 110, 3 May 2007) and Nezirovic v. Slovenia (no. 16400/06, (dec.), §§ 27-42, 18 November 2008) the complaints under Articles 6 and 13 must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention, respectively.
• EGMR, 05.04.2001 - 41413/98

  MALICKA-WASOWSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 42977/04

  In this respect the Court recalls that while the applicant is entitled to make use of his procedural rights, he must bear the consequences when his exercise leads to delays (see, inter alia, Malicka-Wasowsa v. Poland (dec.), no. 41413/98, 5 April 2001, and Peryt v. Poland, no. 42042/98, 2 December 2003).
• EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 16400/06

  NEZIROVIC v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 42977/04

  Following the Court's findings in the cases Grzincic v. Slovenia (no. 26867/02, § 110, 3 May 2007) and Nezirovic v. Slovenia (no. 16400/06, (dec.), §§ 27-42, 18 November 2008) the complaints under Articles 6 and 13 must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention, respectively.
• EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 33946/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 42977/04

  Having regard to the 2006 Act as in force at the material time (see by contrast, Žurej v. Slovenia, (dec.), no. 10386/03, § 17, 16 March 2010), the applicant had no possibility to claim compensation for the delays incurred in the proceedings (see mutatis mutandis, Tomazic v. Slovenia, no. 38350/02, §§ 41-45, 13 December 2007 and Lesjak v. Slovenia, no. 33946/03, §§ 54-55, 21 July 2009).
• EGMR, 02.12.2003 - 42042/98

  PERYT v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 42977/04

  In this respect the Court recalls that while the applicant is entitled to make use of his procedural rights, he must bear the consequences when his exercise leads to delays (see, inter alia, Malicka-Wasowsa v. Poland (dec.), no. 41413/98, 5 April 2001, and Peryt v. Poland, no. 42042/98, 2 December 2003).
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 31489/02

  JAZBEC v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 42977/04

  Having regard to the foregoing and to its case-law on the subject (see Rumpf v. Germany, no. 46344/06, §§ 41-46, 2 September 2010, Tomazic v. Slovenia, no. 38350/02, §§ 54-61, 13 December 2007, Jazbec v. Slovenia, no. 31489/02, §§ 64-69, 14 December 2006), the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.
• EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 10386/03

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.12.2016 - 23032/02

  LUKENDA AND 263 OTHER CASES AGAINST SLOVENIA

  42977/04.