Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JANN-ZWICKER AND JANN v. SWITZERLAND

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  JANN-ZWICKER AND JANN v. SWITZERLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (15)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR - 41072/11 (anhängig)

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 4976/20

  Rn. 6 A general ban on asbestos was introduced in Switzerland in 1989 (see Howald Moor and Others v. Switzerland, nos. 52067/10 and 41072/11, § 9, 11 March 2014).

  52067/10 and 41072/11, 11 March 2014, and that there was therefore no reason to change the Court's practice.

• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75529/01

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 4976/20

  Similarly, even in legal systems that apply the principle that the procedural initiative lies with the parties, the parties' attitude does not dispense the courts from the duty of ensuring that any trial is conducted expeditiously, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 129, ECHR 2006-VII, with further references).
• EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

  König ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 4976/20

  Rn. 87 The Court considers that the Government's objection raises issues that are closely linked to the merits of the applicants' complaint, as normally the whole of the proceedings in question must be taken into consideration (see König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, § 98 in fine, Series A no. 27).

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 4976/20

  Rn. 102 The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that despite the fact that the case is marked by a certain degree of complexity, the State did not comply with its duty to ensure that the proceedings before the Federal Court were conducted within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 44, ECHR 2000-VII, concerning a delay of nearly six years between the matter in question being referred to the French Conseil d'Etat and the delivery of its judgment; see also Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 22, ECHR 2000-IV, which concerned delays on the part of the judicial authorities of one year and seven months and of four years and eight months).
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 4976/20

  However, the Committee of Ministers' role in the sphere of the execution of the Court's judgments does not prevent the Court from examining a fresh application concerning measures taken by a respondent State in the execution of a judgment if that application contains relevant new information relating to issues undecided by the initial judgment (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 33, ECHR 2015, with further references).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97

  COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 4976/20

  Rn. 102 The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that despite the fact that the case is marked by a certain degree of complexity, the State did not comply with its duty to ensure that the proceedings before the Federal Court were conducted within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 44, ECHR 2000-VII, concerning a delay of nearly six years between the matter in question being referred to the French Conseil d'Etat and the delivery of its judgment; see also Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 22, ECHR 2000-IV, which concerned delays on the part of the judicial authorities of one year and seven months and of four years and eight months).
• EGMR, 29.03.1989 - 11118/84

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 4976/20

  Rn. 96 In civil proceedings, the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention normally begins to run from the moment at which proceedings were instituted before the relevant court (see Bock v. Germany, 29 March 1989, § 35, Series A no. 150, and Poiss v. Austria, 23 April 1987, § 50, Series A no. 117).
• EGMR, 24.11.1994 - 15287/89

  BEAUMARTIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 4976/20

  Long periods during which the proceedings stagnate without explanations can be in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Beaumartin v. France, 24 November 1994, § 33, Series A no. 296-B).
• EGMR, 13.07.2004 - 73983/01

  REZETTE c. LUXEMBOURG

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 4976/20

  Given what had been at stake for them, the instant case therefore differed from others in which the Court had found that the suspension of proceedings had not been justified under the specific circumstances of those cases (see König, cited above, §§ 110-111), or in which the Court had found that the suspension of the proceedings had been excessively lengthy (see Rezette v. Luxembourg, no. 73983/01, § 32, 13 July 2004).
• EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 50018/17

  SAS IVECO FRANCE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 4976/20

  Rn. 82 The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that in the exceptional circumstances that pertain to victims of asbestos exposure (in this regard, see also SAS IVECO FRANCE v. France (dec.), no. 50018/17, §§ 33-44, 1 February 2022, where the Court accepted as Convention-compliant a specific evidentiary regime that applied to claims for compensation for anxiety-related harm caused to asbestos victims - notably the making of presumptions in favour of the asbestos victims that could be rebutted by demonstrating the existence of "grounds for exoneration from liability"), the application of the absolute limitation periods by the domestic courts - in particular the manner of determining the dies a quo in respect of the running of the absolute limitation period - resulted in the applicants' right of access to a court being restricted to the point that the very essence of that right had been impaired.
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
• EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 43572/18

  GRZĘDA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 1398/03

  MARKOVIC ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 23805/94

  BELLET c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 18.11.2021 - 49083/18

  COLIC v. CROATIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 19.06.2025 - C-338/24

  Haftung für Impfstoffe: Nach Ansicht von Generalanwältin Medina verstößt die …

  Vgl. auch EGMR, 13. Februar 2024, Jann-Zwicker und Jann/Schweiz, CE:ECHR:2024:0213JUD000497620.
• EGMR, 26.08.2025 - 34012/20

  VERVELE v. GREECE

  They are under no duty to take any action that is not apt for that purpose (see, for instance, Jann-Zwicker and Jann v. Switzerland, no. 4976/20, § 95, 13 February 2024).
• EGMR, 20.05.2025 - 12908/23

  PAIC v. SWEDEN

  52067/10 and 41072/11, 11 March 2014; Sanofi Pasteur v. France, no. 25137/16, 13 February 2020; and Jann-Zwicker and Jann v. Switzerland, no. 4976/20, 13 February 2024).