Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAGOCH v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 29539/07

  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, 19.10.2004 - 67299/01

  DUBJAKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 29539/07

  The Court will have regard in this connection to the compatibility of the amount with its own awards in similar length of proceedings cases, bearing in mind the principles which it has developed for determining victim status and for assessing the amount of non-pecuniary compensation to be awarded where it has found a breach of the reasonable-time requirement (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 85-107, ECHR 2006-...,; Scordino v. Italy (no.1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 193-215, ECHR-2006-...; and Dubjakova v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 67299/01, 10 October 2004).
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

  CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 29539/07

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, are stated in the Court's decisions in the cases of Charzynski v. Poland no. 15212/03 (dec.), §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V and Ratajczyk v. Poland no. 11215/02 (dec.), ECHR 2005-VIII and the judgment in the case of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V.

• EGMR, 12.10.2017 - 57745/11

  ARIF ISLAMZADE AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  Having studied the terms of the Government's unilateral declarations and finding in particular that the amount of compensation offered in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage does not constitute adequate and sufficient redress for the violations of the applicants" rights under the Convention (see, among many others, Gulmammadova v. Azerbaijan, no. 38798/07, §§ 51-63, 22 April 2010, and Zulfali Huseynov v. Azerbaijan, no. 56547/10, §§ 21-37, 26 June 2012), the Court considers that the proposed declarations do not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of these applications (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003-VI, and Magoch v. Poland, no. 29539/07, §§ 15-20, 2 February 2010).