Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VIDAS v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (victim) Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 02.12.1999 - 32082/96

  Überprüfung der Länge eines in Portugal anhängigen Strafverfahrens durch den …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 40383/04

  In addition, particular attention should be paid to, inter alia, the speediness of the remedial action itself, it not being excluded that the adequate nature of the remedy can be undermined by its excessive duration (Tomé Mota v. Portugal (dec.), no. 32082/96, ECHR 1999-IX, and Paulino Tomás, cited above).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 40383/04

  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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 40383/04

  The effect of Article 13 is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an "arguable complaint" under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief (see, among many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 04.07.2002 - 20862/02

  SLAVICEK contre la CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 40383/04

  The Court recalls that it has already found that a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act represents an effective remedy about the length of proceedings that are pending (see Slavicek v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20862/02, ECHR 2002-VII).
• EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 58698/00

  PAULINO TOMAS contre le PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 40383/04

  The term "effective" is also considered to mean that the remedy must be adequate and accessible (Paulino Tomás v. Portugal (dec.), no. 58698/00, ECHR 2003-...).

• EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06

  McFARLANE v. IRELAND

  Such a lapse of time would not be reconcilable with the requirement that the remedy for delay (even before a constitutional court) be sufficiently swift (see Belinger v. Slovenia, cited above; Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, § 65, ECHR 2005-X; and, later, Vidas v. Croatia, no. 40383/04, 3 July 2008).
• EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 22644/03

  SIMALDONE c. ITALIE

  Les exigences de l'article 13 de la Convention ne sont toutefois respectées que si le recours que le droit national offre aux justiciables pour se plaindre d'une méconnaissance de l'article 6 § 1 demeure un recours efficace, adéquat et accessible permettant de sanctionner la durée excessive d'une procédure judiciaire (Paulino Tomas c. Portugal, précité ; Vidas c. Croatie, no 40383/04, § 36, 3 juillet 2008).
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 56065/10

  MILOVANOVIC v. SERBIA

  The Court notes that the proceedings which the applicant instituted in order to obtain redress for the situation about which she complained to the Court were pending before the Constitutional Court for three and a half years without any possibility of the case being dealt with as a priority policy, a lapse of time which cannot clearly be reconcilable with the general speediness requirement (see, in general context, Scordino, cited above, § 202; McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 123, 10 September 2010, with further references; Vidas v. Croatia, no. 40383/04, § 37, 3 July 2008; Doran v. Ireland, no. 50389/99, § 56-57 and 65, ECHR 2003-X (extracts); and Wasserman v. Russia (no. 2), no. 21071/05, § 55, 10 April 2008; see, also, in respect of a preventive and compensatory nature of a remedy in context of Article 8, Kuppinger v. Germany, no. 62198/11, § 136-137, 15 January 2015; Macready v. the Czech Republic, cited above, § 48; Bergmann v. the Czech Republic, no. 8857/08, 27 October 2011, §§ 45-46 with further references, and Mansour v. Slovakia, 60399/15, §§ 41-42, 21 November 2017).

 
• EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 16084/90

  PROTOPAPA v. TURKEY

  The term "effective" is also considered to mean that the remedy must be adequate and accessible (see Vidas v. Croatia, no. 40383/04, § 34, 3 July 2008, and Paulino Tomás v. Portugal (dec.), no. 58698/00, ECHR 2003-VIII).
• EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 30073/06

  HANZL ET SPADRNA c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

  La Cour a déjà indiqué que les exigences de l'article 13 de la Convention ne sont respectées que si le recours que le droit national offre aux justiciables pour se plaindre d'une méconnaissance de l'article 6 § 1 demeure un recours efficace, adéquat et accessible permettant de sanctionner la durée excessive d'une procédure judiciaire (Cocchiarella c. Italie [GC], no 64886/01, § 86, CEDH 2006-V ; Vidas c. Croatie, no 40383/04, § 36, 3 juillet 2008).
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 16081/90

  PETRAKIDOU v. TURKEY

  The term "effective" is also considered to mean that the remedy must be adequate and accessible (see Vidas v. Croatia, no. 40383/04, § 34, 3 July 2008, and Paulino Tomás v. Portugal (dec.), no. 58698/00, ECHR 2003-VIII).
• EGMR, 27.10.2009 - 16091/90

  OLYMBIOU v. TURKEY

  The term "effective" is also considered to mean that the remedy must be adequate and accessible (see Vidas v. Croatia, no. 40383/04, § 34, 3 July 2008, and Paulino Tomás v. Portugal (dec.), no. 58698/00, ECHR 2003-VIII).
• EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 16082/90

  STRATI v. TURKEY

  The term "effective" is also considered to mean that the remedy must be adequate and accessible (see Vidas v. Croatia, no. 40383/04, § 34, 3 July 2008, and Paulino Tomás v. Portugal (dec.), no. 58698/00, ECHR 2003-VIII).
• EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 2295/06

  CHAYKOVSKIY v. UKRAINE

  The term "effective" is also considered to mean that the remedy must be adequate and accessible (see Vidas v. Croatia, no. 40383/04, § 34, 3 July 2008, and Paulino Tomás v. Portugal (dec.), no. 58698/00, ECHR 2003-VIII).
• EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 16078/90

  VRAHIMI v. TURKEY

  The term "effective" is also considered to mean that the remedy must be adequate and accessible (see Vidas v. Croatia, no. 40383/04, § 34, 3 July 2008, and Paulino Tomás v. Portugal (dec.), no. 58698/00, ECHR 2003-VIII).
• EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 16094/90

  ANDREOU PAPI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 16079/90

  ASPROFTAS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 69635/12

  SCHMIT c. LUXEMBOURG