Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 8607/02   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2007,72128
EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 8607/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,72128)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06.09.2007 - 8607/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,72128)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06. September 2007 - 8607/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,72128)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,72128) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (8)

  • EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 35377/05

    MICHALKO v. SLOVAKIA

    The decision was, however, not delivered publicly and the applicant only learned of it when a written version of it was served on him on 10 June 2004 (see, for example, Cabala v. Slovakia, no. 8607/02, § 68, 6 September 2007, and Singh v. the Czech Republic, no. 60538/00, § 74, 25 January 2005).
  • EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 20271/06

    STETIAR AND SUTEK v. SLOVAKIA

    The decision was, however, not delivered publicly and the applicants only learned of it when a written version of it was served on them on 31 March 2005 (see, for example, Cabala v. Slovakia, no. 8607/02, § 68, 6 September 2007, and Singh v. the Czech Republic, no. 60538/00, § 74, 25 January 2005).
  • EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 5515/09

    HORVÁTH v. SLOVAKIA

    The determination of his request thus in any event took more than eight months, during which time his request was examined at a single level of jurisdiction, without counting any possible further period for delivering and serving the written version of the release order on him (see, for example, Cabala v. Slovakia, no. 8607/02, § 68, 6 September 2007, and Singh v. the Czech Republic, no. 60538/00, § 74, 25 January 2005).
  • EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 41238/05

    KARLIN v. SLOVAKIA

    The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, the period under consideration for the purposes of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention begins with the lodging of the application with the domestic authorities and, in the absence of a public pronouncement of the decision, ends on the day the decision is communicated to the applicant or to his representative (see, mutatis mutandis, Koendjbiharie v. the Netherlands, 25 October 1990, Series A no. 185-B, § 28; Singh v. the Czech Republic, no. 60538/00, § 74, 25 January 2005; and Cabala v. Slovakia, no. 8607/02, § 68, 6 September 2007).
  • EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 30157/03

    MICHALAK v. SLOVAKIA

    The decision was, however, not delivered publicly, and the applicant only learned of it when a written version of it was served on him on 3 February 2004 (see, for example, Cabala v. Slovakia, no. 8607/02, § 68, 6 September 2007, and Singh v. the Czech Republic, no. 60538/00, § 74, 25 January 2005).
  • EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 15684/05

    OSVÁTHOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA

    The Court reiterates that according to its case-law the period under consideration under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention begins with the lodging of the application with the domestic authorities and, in the absence of a public pronouncement of the decision, ends on the day the decision is communicated to the applicant or to his representative (see, mutatis mutandis Koendjbiharie v. the Netherlands, judgment of 25 October 1990, Series A no. 185-B, § 28; Singh v. the Czech Republic, no. 60538/00, § 74, 25 January 2005; and Cabala v. Slovakia, no. 8607/02, § 68, 6 September 2007).
  • EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 45426/06

    GAL v. SLOVAKIA

    The decision was however not pronounced publicly and the applicant only learned of it when a written version of it was served on him and his lawyer on 23 May 2006 (see, for example, Cabala v. Slovakia, no. 8607/02, § 68, 6 September 2007, and Singh v. the Czech Republic, no. 60538/00, § 74, 25 January 2005).
  • EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 64528/09

    SCHVARC v. SLOVAKIA

    The period under consideration thus lasted 99 days (see, for example, Singh v. the Czech Republic, no. 60538/00, § 74, 25 January 2005, and Cabala v. Slovakia, no. 8607/02, § 68, 6 September 2007), during which time his request was examined by the Public Prosecution Service and two levels of courts.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht