Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DUBOC v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 7, Art. 13, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 28856/95

  JOKELA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 8154/04

  As to the applicant's claim that the requirements laid down in these provisions were not complied with, it has to be borne in mind that the Court's power to review compliance with domestic law is limited (see, among many other authorities, Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 51, ECHR 2002-IV, and Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 50, Series A no. 192).
• EGMR, 26.06.2003 - 57652/00

  WURM v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 8154/04

  The Court reiterates that it is its settled case-law that an applicant who complains of the length of proceedings before the ordinary courts being unreasonably long is normally required to file an application under section 91 of the Courts Act (see (see, Holzinger v. Austria (no. 1), no. 23459/94, §§ 21-23, ECHR 2001-I; and, with respect to criminal proceedings, Talirz v. Austria (dec.), no. 37323/97, 11 September 2001; Wurm v. Austria (dec.), no. 57652/00, 26 June 2003, Ecker v. Austria (dec.), no. 32042/02, 1 February 2005; Tuma v. Austria (dec.), no. 32942/03, 24 May 2007 and Saccoccia v. Austria (dec.), no. 69917/01, 5 July 2007).
• EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 32042/02

  ECKER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 8154/04

  The Court reiterates that it is its settled case-law that an applicant who complains of the length of proceedings before the ordinary courts being unreasonably long is normally required to file an application under section 91 of the Courts Act (see (see, Holzinger v. Austria (no. 1), no. 23459/94, §§ 21-23, ECHR 2001-I; and, with respect to criminal proceedings, Talirz v. Austria (dec.), no. 37323/97, 11 September 2001; Wurm v. Austria (dec.), no. 57652/00, 26 June 2003, Ecker v. Austria (dec.), no. 32042/02, 1 February 2005; Tuma v. Austria (dec.), no. 32942/03, 24 May 2007 and Saccoccia v. Austria (dec.), no. 69917/01, 5 July 2007).

 
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 32942/03

  TUMA v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 8154/04

  The Court reiterates that it is its settled case-law that an applicant who complains of the length of proceedings before the ordinary courts being unreasonably long is normally required to file an application under section 91 of the Courts Act (see (see, Holzinger v. Austria (no. 1), no. 23459/94, §§ 21-23, ECHR 2001-I; and, with respect to criminal proceedings, Talirz v. Austria (dec.), no. 37323/97, 11 September 2001; Wurm v. Austria (dec.), no. 57652/00, 26 June 2003, Ecker v. Austria (dec.), no. 32042/02, 1 February 2005; Tuma v. Austria (dec.), no. 32942/03, 24 May 2007 and Saccoccia v. Austria (dec.), no. 69917/01, 5 July 2007).
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 8154/04

  As to the applicant's claim that the requirements laid down in these provisions were not complied with, it has to be borne in mind that the Court's power to review compliance with domestic law is limited (see, among many other authorities, Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 51, ECHR 2002-IV, and Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 50, Series A no. 192).
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 8154/04

  It has already held that measures, which are designed to block movements of suspect capital, are an effective and necessary weapon in that fight (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 30, Series A no. 281-A).