Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STROBEL v. AUSTRIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2009 - 25929/05

  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, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

  König ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2009 - 25929/05

  The period to be taken into consideration began on 16 January 2002, when the Dean of Klagenfurt University dismissed the applicant's claim, as it was at that moment when a "dispute" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 arose, the administrative authority's decision being a necessary preliminary step for bringing the dispute before a tribunal (see, for instance, Morscher v. Austria, no. 54039/00, § 38, 5 February 2004, with a reference to König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, § 98, Series A no. 27) and ended on 20 November 2006 when the parties concluded a settlement.

• EGMR, 28.02.2017 - 49664/12

  HAMBERGER v. AUSTRIA

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Hackel v. Austria, no. 43463/09, §§ 18-21, 21 June 2016; Kugler v. Austria, no. 65631/01, §§ 39-42, 14 October 2010; Otto v. Austria, cited above, §§ 23-25; Strobel v. Austria, no. 25929/05, §§ 26-28, 4 June 2009; and Riepl v. Austria, no. 37040/02, §§ 37-42, 3 February 2005).
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 43463/09

  HACKEL v. AUSTRIA

  Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see for example Otto v. Austria, no. 12702/08, 22 October 2009, and Strobel v. Austria, no. 25929/05, 4 June 2009), the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.