Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MORINGER v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 5 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 20593/02

  The Court notes that the reasonableness of the length of the proceedings has to be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case and having regard to the criteria laid down in its case-law, in particular the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities (see among many others, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 124, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 20593/02

  As regards the termination of the proceedings, the Court recalls that in criminal matters in event of conviction, there is no "determination of any criminal charge" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 as long as the sentence is not definitively fixed (see Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 34, § 77).
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

  Brandstetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 20593/02

  The States may secure that this requirement is met by various ways (see mutatis mutandis Brandstetter v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, pp. 27-28, §§ 66-67).

 
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 20593/02

  Although detention following the first instance judgment is considered as detention on remand under Austrian law, this is not the case for the purpose of Article 5. According to established case-law, detention after the judgment at first instance no longer falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), but within the scope of Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see for instance Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 147, ECHR 2000-IV; B. v. Austria, judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 175, pp. 14-16, §§ 36-39).
• EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13611/88

  Klaus Croissant

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 20593/02

  However, they can override those wishes when there are relevant and sufficient grounds for holding that this is necessary in the interests of justice (see Croissant v. Germany, judgment of 25 September 1992, Series A no. 237-B, § 29).
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 20593/02

  Although detention following the first instance judgment is considered as detention on remand under Austrian law, this is not the case for the purpose of Article 5. According to established case-law, detention after the judgment at first instance no longer falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), but within the scope of Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see for instance Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 147, ECHR 2000-IV; B. v. Austria, judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 175, pp. 14-16, §§ 36-39).
• EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

  BRICMONT v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 20593/02

  Only exceptional circumstances, such as the complete silence in a judgment as to why the court rejected the hearing of a witness for the defence, could lead the Convention organs to conclude that the refusal to hear such witnesses violated Article 6 of the Convention (Bricmont v. Belgium, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, § 89).
• EGMR, 18.01.2000 - 27618/95

  PESTI AND FRODL v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 20593/02

  The Court reiterates that Article 6 cannot be said to require the review of the transcripts of the trial or the establishment of a full verbatim record of the first instance proceedings (see Pesti and Frodl v. Austria, (dec.) no. 27618/95, ECHR 2000-I (extracts)).
• EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 23459/94

  HOLZINGER c. AUTRICHE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 20593/02

  As regards the question whether the applicant has exhausted domestic remedies the Court notes that in the case of Holzinger v. Austria the Court has found that a request under Section 91 of the Austrian Courts Act is, in principle, an effective remedy which has to be used in respect of complaints about the length of court proceedings (no. 23459/94, §§ 24-25, ECHR 2001-I, relating to civil proceedings; see also Talirz v. Austria (dec.), no. 37323/97, 11 September 2001, relating to criminal proceedings).