Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOMANICKY v. SLOVAKIA (No. 2)

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

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 18.10.2005 - 56161/00
• EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 56161/00

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 54330/00

  PRELOZNIK v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 56161/00

  Moreover, the proceedings were accompanied by proceedings for enforcement of the judgment of 31 October 1996, which also enjoyed the protection of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and should be taken into account (see, for example, Hornsby v. Greece, judgment of 19 March 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II, p. 510, § 40, and also Prelozník v. Slovakia, no. 54330/00, § 92, 12 December 2006).

  It has previously found that there were no legal remedies in Slovakia at the relevant time capable of effectively redressing alleged violations of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Prelozník v. Slovakia, no. 54330/00, § 116, 12 December 2006) and sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case.

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 56161/00

  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, 06.02.2001 - 44599/98

  BENSAID c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 56161/00

  The Court reiterates further that the word "remedy" within the meaning of Article 13 does not mean a remedy which is bound to succeed, but simply an accessible remedy before an authority competent to examine the merits of a complaint (see, mutatis mutandis, Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, § 56, ECHR 2001-I).

 
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 56161/00

  The reasonableness of this period 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, 22.10.2002 - 57984/00

  ANDRASIK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 56161/00

  57984/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00, 68563/01 and 60226/00, ECHR 2002-IX).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

  WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 56161/00

  The Court considers that, because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to appreciate the competing interests in the present case (see, among many other authorise, mutatis mutandis, Weeks v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114, p. 26, § 50).
• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80

  GILLOW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 56161/00

  As for the applicant's objection concerning mandatory legal representation, the Court observes that the requirement of representation by a lawyer in proceedings before a higher court does not of itself infringe the principles of the Convention (see, for example, Gillow v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 109, p. 27, § 69 and Slezák v. the Czech Republic, no. 32487/96, Commission decision of 14 January 1998, unreported).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 19753/92

  CIRICOSTA AND VIOLA v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 56161/00

  Having regard to the foregoing considerations, in particular the applicant's procedural conduct both in the present proceedings and in a broader context, the Court concludes that there is no indication that the overall length of the proceedings in the present case was contrary to the requirements laid down in Article 6 § 1 (compare Kandrácová and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 48674/99, 27 January 2004, and Bleyová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 69353/01, 17 October 2006; and also, for example, Katte Klitsche de la Grange v. Italy, judgment of 27 October 1994, Series A no. 293-B, §§ 49-63; Ciricosta and Viola v. Italy, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 337-A, § 28; Sergi v. Italy (dec.), no. 46998/99, 26 September 2000; and Viscomi v. Italy (dec.), no. 52927/99, 8 February 2001).