Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BEKERMAN v. LIECHTENSTEIN

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BEKERMAN v. LIECHTENSTEIN

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 21341/07

  ABULAIL AND LUDNEVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2015 - 34459/10

  The Court reiterates that it has proceeded in that manner, inter alia, in cases where the applicant was not properly represented before the Court in accordance with Rule 36 §§ 2 and 4 (a) of its Rules of Court (see, among others, Grimaylo v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 69364/01, 7 February 2006; Akulov v. Russia (dec.), no. 74688/01, 8 March 2007; and Abulail and Ludneva v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 21341/07, § 26, 13 November 2014).
• EGMR, 08.03.2007 - 74688/01

  AKULOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2015 - 34459/10

  The Court reiterates that it has proceeded in that manner, inter alia, in cases where the applicant was not properly represented before the Court in accordance with Rule 36 §§ 2 and 4 (a) of its Rules of Court (see, among others, Grimaylo v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 69364/01, 7 February 2006; Akulov v. Russia (dec.), no. 74688/01, 8 March 2007; and Abulail and Ludneva v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 21341/07, § 26, 13 November 2014).
• EGMR, 29.05.2006 - 26194/03

  HANSEN AND OTHERS v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2015 - 34459/10

  Such redress may, in particular, be granted by a reduction of, or exemption from, costs and expenses which an applicant would have had to pay otherwise in the legal proceedings at issue (see, for instance, Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; Hansen and Others v. Denmark (dec.), no. 26194/03, 29 May 2006; and Brøsted v. Denmark (dec.), no. 21846/04, 30 August 2006).

 
• EGMR, 07.02.2006 - 69364/01

  GRIMAYLO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2015 - 34459/10

  The Court reiterates that it has proceeded in that manner, inter alia, in cases where the applicant was not properly represented before the Court in accordance with Rule 36 §§ 2 and 4 (a) of its Rules of Court (see, among others, Grimaylo v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 69364/01, 7 February 2006; Akulov v. Russia (dec.), no. 74688/01, 8 March 2007; and Abulail and Ludneva v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 21341/07, § 26, 13 November 2014).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2015 - 34459/10

  A remedy is therefore effective if it can be used either to expedite a decision by the courts dealing with the case, or to provide the litigant with adequate redress for delays that have already occurred (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII; Hartman v. the Czech Republic, no. 53341/99, § 81, ECHR 2003-VIII (extracts); and Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 99, ECHR 2006-VII).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2015 - 34459/10

  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 of 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, 04.10.2006 - 76642/01

  ASSOCIATION SOS ATTENTATS ET DE BOERY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2015 - 34459/10

  It has also proceeded in that way in cases where the applicants had reached an agreement or settlement with the domestic authorities which largely satisfied the demands that they had made under the Convention, and had thus lost their victim status (see Association SOS Attentats and de Boery v. France [GC] (dec.), no. 76642/01, § 37, ECHR 2006-XIV).
• EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 51585/99

  HORVAT v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2015 - 34459/10

  The Court reiterates that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies in Article 35 § 1 is based on the assumption, reflected in Article 13 of the Convention, with which it has a close affinity, that there is an effective remedy available in respect of the alleged breach of a Convention right in the domestic system (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI; and Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, § 37, ECHR 2001-VIII).