Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JOSEPHIDES v. CYPRUS

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 33761/02

  The Court further recalls that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention imposes on the Contracting States the duty to organise their judicial system in such a way that their courts can meet each of its requirements, including the obligation to hear cases within a reasonable time (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 74 ECHR 1999-II; and Frydlender, § 45, cited above).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 37683/97

  IAN EDGAR (LIVERPOOL) LIMITED contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 33761/02

  Thus, future income cannot be considered to constitute "possessions" unless it has already been earned or is definitely payable (see, inter alia, Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 64, ECHR 2007-...; Denimark v. the United Kingdom, no. 37660/97, decision of 26 September 2000; and Ian Edgar [Liverpool] Ltd. v. the United Kingdom, no. 37683/97, decision of 25 January 2000) which was not the situation in the present case.
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 33761/02

  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, 26.09.2000 - 37660/97

  DENIMARK LIMITED AND 11 OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 33761/02

  Thus, future income cannot be considered to constitute "possessions" unless it has already been earned or is definitely payable (see, inter alia, Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 64, ECHR 2007-...; Denimark v. the United Kingdom, no. 37660/97, decision of 26 September 2000; and Ian Edgar [Liverpool] Ltd. v. the United Kingdom, no. 37683/97, decision of 25 January 2000) which was not the situation in the present case.
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 33761/02

  In particular, a remedy shall be "effective" if it can be used either to expedite the proceedings at issue or to provide the litigant with adequate redress for delays which have already occurred (see, mutatis mutandis, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 157-159, ECHR 2000-XI; Mifsud v. France (dec.), [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII; and Sürmeli, cited above, § 99).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 33761/02

  In particular, a remedy shall be "effective" if it can be used either to expedite the proceedings at issue or to provide the litigant with adequate redress for delays which have already occurred (see, mutatis mutandis, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 157-159, ECHR 2000-XI; Mifsud v. France (dec.), [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII; and Sürmeli, cited above, § 99).
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75529/01

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 33761/02

  Finally, the Court reiterates that the decisive question in assessing the effectiveness of a remedy concerning procedural delay is whether or not there is a possibility for the applicant to be provided with direct and speedy redress, rather than the indirect protection of the rights guaranteed under Article 6 (see, mutatis mutandis, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 195, ECHR 2006; and Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 101, 8 June 2006).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 33761/02

  In light of the Court's conclusions above and consequently the absence of an arguable claim under Article 6 § 1 in this respect, Article 13 is not engaged (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).

• EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 32715/06

  Kübler ./. Deutschland

  Was den "zivilrechtlichen" Charakter dieses Rechts anbelangt, stellte der Gerichtshof fest, dass der in der Rechtssache Vilho Eskelinen (…a.a.O.) entwickelte Ansatz auch auf den Anspruch auf Zugang zu einem öffentlichen Amt anwendbar sei (siehe Josephides ./. Zypern, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 33761/02, Rdnr. 54, 6.
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 58222/09

  JURICIC v. CROATIA

  As regards the "civil" nature of the right, the Court held that the approach developed in the case of Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland ([GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007-IV, see paragraph 54 below) also applied to the right of access to public office (see, notably, Kübler, cited above, § 45; and, implicitly, Josephides v. Cyprus, no. 33761/02, § 54, 6 December 2007; Lombardi Vallauri, cited above, § 62, and Penttinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 9125/07, 5 January 2010).
• EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 16924/08

  MAJSKI v. CROATIA (No.2)

  As regards the "civil" nature of the right, the Court held that the approach developed in the case of Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland ([GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007-IV, see paragraph 53 below) also applied to the right of access to a public office (see, notably, Kübler, cited above, § 45; and, implicitly, Josephides v. Cyprus, no. 33761/02, § 54, 6 December 2007; Lombardi Vallauri, cited above, loc. cit.; and Penttinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 9125/07, 5 January 2010).

 
• EGMR, 25.03.2010 - 29373/08

  MAKRIDES v. CYPRUS

  Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in a variety of cases against Cyprus (see, for example, Christodoulou v. Cyprus, no. 30282/06, 16 July 2009; Charalambides v. Cyprus, no. 37885/04, 15 January 2009; Michael Theodossiou Ltd v. Cyprus, no. 31811/04, 15 January 2009; Mylonas v. Cyprus, no. 14790/06, 11 December 2008; Douglas v. Cyprus, no. 21929/04, 17 July 2008; Josephides v. Cyprus, no. 33761/02, 6 December 2007; Odysseos v. Cyprus, no. 30503/03, 8 March 2007; Shacolas v. Cyprus, no. 47119/99, 4 May 2006).
• EGMR, 11.03.2010 - 52814/08

  PAPAKOKKINOU v. CYPRUS (II)

  Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in a variety of cases against Cyprus (see, for example, Christodoulou v. Cyprus, no. 30282/06, 16 July 2009; Charalambides v. Cyprus, no. 37885/04, 15 January 2009; Michael Theodossiou Ltd v. Cyprus, no. 31811/04, 15 January 2009; Mylonas v. Cyprus, no. 14790/06, 11 December 2008; Douglas v. Cyprus, no. 21929/04, 17 July 2008; Josephides v. Cyprus, no. 33761/02, 6 December 2007; Odysseos v. Cyprus, no. 30503/03, 8 March 2007; Shacolas v. Cyprus, no. 47119/99, 4 May 2006).
• EGMR, 11.03.2010 - 35686/08

  PAPAKOKKINOU v. CYPRUS

  Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in a variety of cases against Cyprus (see, for example, Christodoulou v. Cyprus, no. 30282/06, 16 July 2009; Charalambides v. Cyprus, no. 37885/04, 15 January 2009; Michael Theodossiou Ltd v. Cyprus, no. 31811/04, 15 January 2009; Mylonas v. Cyprus, no. 14790/06, 11 December 2008; Douglas v. Cyprus, no. 21929/04, 17 July 2008; Josephides v. Cyprus, no. 33761/02, 6 December 2007; Odysseos v. Cyprus, no. 30503/03, 8 March 2007; Shacolas v. Cyprus, no. 47119/99, 4 May 2006).
• EGMR, 25.02.2010 - 43249/08

  CHARALAMBIDES v. CYPRUS

  Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in a variety of cases against Cyprus (see, for example, Christodoulou v. Cyprus, no. 30282/06, 16 July 2009; Charalambides v. Cyprus, no. 37885/04, 15 January 2009; Michael Theodossiou Ltd v. Cyprus, no. 31811/04, 15 January 2009; Mylonas v. Cyprus, no. 14790/06, 11 December 2008; Douglas v. Cyprus, no. 21929/04, 17 July 2008; Josephides v. Cyprus, no. 33761/02, 6 December 2007; Odysseos v. Cyprus, no. 30503/03, 8 March 2007; Shacolas v. Cyprus, no. 47119/99, 4 May 2006).
• EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 29643/05

  ARAS v. TURKEY

  Thus, future income cannot be considered to constitute "possessions" unless it has already been earned or is definitely payable (see, inter alia, Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 64, ECHR 2007-...; Denmark v. the United Kingdom, no. 37660/97, decision of 26 September 2000; Ian Edgar [Liverpool] Ltd. v. the United Kingdom, no. 37683/97, decision of 25 January 2000; and Josephides v. Cyprus, no. 33761/02, § 98, 6 December 2007).