Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 60702/11, 59633/12, 10092/13, 20708/13, 22455/13, 61245/13, 61482/13, 22520/14, 13258/15 |
Zitiervorschläge
EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 60702/11, 59633/12, 10092/13, 20708/13, 22455/13, 61245/13, 61482/13, 22520/14, 13258/15 (https://dejure.org/2017,14612)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 07.03.2017 - 60702/11, 59633/12, 10092/13, 20708/13, 22455/13, 61245/13, 61482/13, 22520/14, 13258/15 (https://dejure.org/2017,14612)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 07. März 2017 - 60702/11, 59633/12, 10092/13, 20708/13, 22455/13, 61245/13, 61482/13, 22520/14, 13258/15 (https://dejure.org/2017,14612)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,14612) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
DOMIRA, SPOL. S R.O. AND MELUZÍNOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Inadmissible (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
DOMIRA, SPOL. S R.O. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 45656/99
CATALDO v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 60702/11
Only where those two conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude examination of an application by the Court (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 71-72, ECHR 2006-V; Cataldo v. Italy (dec.), no. 45656/99, ECHR 2004-VI; and Vidakovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 16231/07, § 26, 24 May 2011). - EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 16231/07
VIDAKOVIC v. SERBIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 60702/11
Only where those two conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude examination of an application by the Court (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 71-72, ECHR 2006-V; Cataldo v. Italy (dec.), no. 45656/99, ECHR 2004-VI; and Vidakovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 16231/07, § 26, 24 May 2011). - EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00
MIFSUD contre la FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 60702/11
Article 13, therefore, offers an alternative: a remedy is effective if it can be used either to expedite a decision by the courts dealing with the case, or to provide the litigant with adequate redress for delays that have already occurred (see Kudla, cited above, §§ 158-59, and Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII). - EGMR, 04.09.2014 - 1071/12
DRENK c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 60702/11
Turning to the Czech legal system, the Court has also already acknowledged the positive developments made since the Court's Vokurka decision (cited above) concerning the legislation on an acceleratory remedy, namely the request to set a time-limit for a procedural step as provided by Article 174a of Act no. 6/2002 as in force since 1 July 2009 (see Drenk v. the Czech Republic, no. 1071/12, § 70, 4 September 2014). - EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75529/01
Verschleppter Prozess - Mann prozessiert seit 16 Jahren um Entschädigung nach …
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 60702/11
Some States have understood the situation perfectly by choosing to combine two types of remedy, one designed to expedite the proceedings and the other to afford compensation (see Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 100, ECHR 2006 VII).