Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZARB v. MALTA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 27.09.2005 - 16631/04
• EGMR, 04.07.2006 - 16631/04

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 27798/95

  AMANN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2006 - 16631/04

  Lastly, the Court recalls that the effectiveness of a remedy within the meaning of Article 13 does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see Surmeli v. Germany, cited above, § 98) and the mere fact that an applicant's claim fails is not in itself sufficient to render the remedy ineffective (Amann v. Switzerland, [GC], no. 27798/95, §§ 88-89, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2006 - 16631/04

  The Court has frequently held that the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law (see, for example, Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 97, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2006 - 16631/04

  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 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, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2006 - 16631/04

  The Court observes firstly, that Article 13 of the Convention 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, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2006 - 16631/04

  Remedies available to a litigant at domestic level for raising a complaint about the length of proceedings are "effective" within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention if they prevent the alleged violation or its continuation, or provide adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1), cited above, §§ 186-188, and Surmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 99, 8 June 2006).
• EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 58698/00

  PAULINO TOMAS contre le PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2006 - 16631/04

  The term "effective" is also considered to mean that the remedy must be adequate and accessible (see Paulino Tomás v. Portugal (dec.), no. 58698/00, ECHR 2003-XIII).
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75529/01

  Verschleppter Prozess - Mann prozessiert seit 16 Jahren um Entschädigung nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2006 - 16631/04

  Remedies available to a litigant at domestic level for raising a complaint about the length of proceedings are "effective" within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention if they prevent the alleged violation or its continuation, or provide adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1), cited above, §§ 186-188, and Surmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 99, 8 June 2006).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2006 - 16631/04

  The Court reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, for example, Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 32, §§ 69 et seq.; Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI; and Jensen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 48470/99, 20 September 2001, ECHR 2001-X).

• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 4458/10

  MIKALAUSKAS v. MALTA

  Such courts can also make an award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage and there is no limit on the amount which can be granted to an applicant for such a violation (see, mutatis mutandis, Gera de Petri Testaferrata Bonici Ghaxaq v. Malta, no. 26771/07, § 69, 5 April 2011, in relation to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and Zarb v. Malta, no. 16631/04, § 51, 4 July 2006, in relation to Article 6).

  The Court notes that the applicant did not institute constitutional redress proceedings, an acceptable remedy under Maltese domestic law for Convention complaints generally (see, for example, Zarb v. Malta, no. 16631/04, 4 July 2006 in relation to Article 6; and, by implication, Camilleri v. Malta, no. 42931/10, 22 January 2013 in relation to Article 7; Zammit Maempel v. Malta, no. 24202/10, 22 November 2011 in relation to Article 8; Aquilina and Others v. Malta, no. 28040/08, 14 June 2011 in relation to Article 10; and Genovese v. Malta, no. 53124/09, 11 October 2011 in relation to Article 14).

• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 60908/11

  BRINCAT AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  These courts can also make an award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage and there is no limit as to the amount which can be awarded to an applicant for such a violation (see, mutatis mutandis, Gera de Petri Testaferrata Bonici Ghaxaq v. Malta, no. 26771/07, § 69, 5 April 2011, in relation to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and Zarb v. Malta, no. 16631/04, § 51, 4 July 2006, in relation to Article 6).
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 55352/12

  ADEN AHMED v. MALTA

  These courts can also make an award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage and there is no limit on the amount which can be awarded to an applicant for such a violation (see, mutatis mutandis, Gera de Petri Testaferrata Bonici Ghaxaq v. Malta, no. 26771/07, § 69, 5 April 2011, in relation to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and Zarb v. Malta, no. 16631/04, § 51, 4 July 2006, in relation to Article 6).

 
• EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 11036/03

  LADENT v. POLAND

  Compte tenu de ce qui précède, le Gouvernement considère que les autorités internes ont reconnu une violation de l'article 5 § 1 de la Convention et étaient disposées à la réparer (Amuur c. France, 25 juin 1996, § 36, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1996-III, et Zarb c. Malte, no 16631/04, § 24, 4 juillet 2006).
• EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 77209/16

  GALEA AND PAVIA v. MALTA

  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, and Zarb v. Malta, no. 16631/04, § 34, 4 July 2006).
• EGMR, 28.04.2022 - 43693/20

  SPITERI v. MALTA

  The general principles concerning the length of proceedings have been summarized in Frydlender v. France ([GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII), and Zarb v. Malta (no. 16631/04, § 34, 4 July 2006).
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 21105/06

  SZKLARSKA c. POLOGNE

  Dans la mesure où la requérante se plaint également du refus de lui allouer des dommages et intérêts pour la durée de la procédure pénale, la Cour observe que si la juridiction interne n'avait pas exclu de son examen de la durée totale de la procédure la durée, non négligeable, de l'enquête préliminaire, la Cour aurait conclu que ce grief ne soulevait aucune question sous l'angle de l'article 13 (voir Kudla c. Pologne [GC], no 30210/96, §§ 154 et suiv., CEDH 2000-XI, Scordino (no 1), arrêt précité, §§ 188-189, mutatis mutandis, Zarb c. Malte, no 16631/04, §§ 49-52, 4 juillet 2006, Sidlová c. Slovaquie, no 50224/99, § 77, 26 septembre 2006).
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 21340/04

  BOROWSKI c. POLOGNE

  Dans la mesure où le requérant se plaint également du refus de lui allouer des dommages et intérêts pour la durée de la procédure pénale, la Cour observe que si la juridiction interne n'avait pas exclu de son examen de la durée totale de la procédure la durée, non négligeable, de l'enquête préliminaire, la Cour aurait conclu que ce grief ne soulevait aucune question sous l'angle de l'article 13 (voir Kudla c. Pologne [GC], no 30210/96, §§ 154 et suiv., CEDH 2000-XI, Scordino (no 1), arrêt précité, §§ 188-189, mutatis mutandis, Zarb c. Malte, no 16631/04, §§ 49-52, 4 juillet 2006, Sidlová c. Slovaquie, no 50224/99, § 77, 26 septembre 2006).
• EGMR - 45914/06

  SHARIPOV v. RUSSIA

  Has the appointment as expert of an officer of the Federal Service of Drug Control hindered the principle of equality of arms and rendered the proceedings unfair contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Shulepova v. Russia, no. 34449/03, 11 December 2008, and Zarb v. Malta (dec.), no. 16631/04, 27 September 2005)? The Government are invited to submit a copy of the applicant's statement of appeal.