Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PUZ v. SLOVENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2006 - 76199/01

  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, 30.03.2006 - 76199/01

  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, 25.11.2003 - 41431/98

  WIERCISZEWSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2006 - 76199/01

  Moreover, although the Court is not in a position to analyse the juridical quality of the case-law of the domestic courts, it considers that, since the remittal of cases for re-examination is usually ordered as a result of errors committed by lower courts, the repetition of such orders within one set of proceedings may disclose a serious deficiency in the judicial system (e.g., Wierciszewska v. Poland, no. 41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003).
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 42320/98

  BELINGER v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2006 - 76199/01

  The Court notes that the present application is similar to the cases of Belinger and Lukenda (Belinger v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 42320/98, 2 October 2001, and Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, 6 October 2005).
• EGMR, 15.10.1999 - 26614/95

  HUMEN c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2006 - 76199/01

  However, in order to assess the reasonableness of the length of time in question, the Court will have regard to the stage reached in the proceedings on 28 June 1994 (see, among other authorities, Humen v. Poland [GC], no. 26614/95, § 59, 15 October 1999).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.12.2016 - 23032/02

  LUKENDA AND 263 OTHER CASES AGAINST SLOVENIA

  76199/01.
• EGMR, 23.07.2015 - 49994/14

  D.P. v. SLOVENIA

  Having examined all the material submitted to it and having regard to its case-law on the subject (see Zolger v. Slovenia, no. 75688/01, §§ 17-19, 30 March 2006; Puz v. Slovenia, no. 76199/01, §§ 20-22, 30 March 2006; Cekuta v. Slovenia, no. 77796/01, §§ 19-21, 6 April 2006; and Bitenc v. Slovenia, no. 3474/06, §§ 38-42, 30 January 2014), the Court, for the reasons set out above, considers that in the instant case the overall length of the proceedings has been excessive and has failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.
• EGMR, 30.01.2014 - 34747/06

  BITENC v. SLOVENIA

  Having regard to the circumstances of the case and its case-law on the subject (see, Žolger v. Slovenia, no. 75688/01, §§ 17-19, 30 March 2006; Puz v. Slovenia, no. 76199/01, §§ 20-22, 30 March 2006; Cekuta v. Slovenia, no. 77796/01, §§ 19-21, 6 April 2006); and in the absence of any arguments brought forward by the Government in respect of the above mentioned criteria, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.
• EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 52045/13

  JOVICIC v. SLOVENIA

  Having regard to the foregoing and to its case-law on the subject (see Zolger v. Slovenia, no. 75688/01, §§ 17-19, 30 March 2006; Puz v. Slovenia, no. 76199/01, §§ 20-22, 30 March 2006; Cekuta v. Slovenia, no. 77796/01, §§ 19-21, 6 April 2006; and Bitenc v. Slovenia, no. 3474/06, §§ 38-42, 30 January 2014), the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.