Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZIROVNICKÝ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 10092/13, 20708/13, 22455/13, 61245/13, 61482/13, 22520/14, 13258/15
• EGMR, 03.12.2020 - 10092/13

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• AG Viersen, 22.02.2005 - 34 C 126/04

  Zulassung der Berufung bei Sicherung einer einheitlichen Rechtsprechung bzgl. der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 10092/13

  1. Main proceedings (no. 34 C 126/2004).

  On 6 June 2007 the applicant claimed compensation under the State Liability Act from the Ministry of Justice for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the main proceedings, no. 34 C 126/2004.

  In contrast, the Court notes that in the main proceedings no. 34 C 126/2004 (application no. 22455/13) the applicant raised an objectively serious claim of violent conduct by police officers during the house search.

  37 C 51/2004, 18 C 84/2006, 34 C 126/2004, 5 Ca 176/2004 and 5 Ca 329/2006, 10 Ca 10/2005 and 10 Ca 400/2006, 10 C 49/2008 (at issue in applications nos. 10092/13, 20708/13, 22455/13, 61245/13, 61482/13 and 22520/14) and the complaint concerning the length of compensation proceedings no. 15 C 184/2012 (at issue in application no. 13258/15) are inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention on the grounds of non-compliance with the six-month rule, lack of a significant disadvantage and manifest ill-foundedness.

  34 C 126/2004.

• EGMR, 04.09.2014 - 68919/10

  PETER v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 10092/13

  The "effectiveness" means that the remedy must be adequate and accessible; while it does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see Peter v. Germany, no. 68919/10, § 55, 4 September 2014, and Kudla, cited above, § 157).
• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 25551/05

  KOROLEV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 10092/13

  The Court notes that the main element of the criterion set by this provision is whether the applicant has suffered any significant disadvantage (see Adrian Mihai Ionescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 36659/04, 1 June 2010; Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010; and Kudlicka v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 21588/12, 3 March 2015).

 
• AG Solingen, 02.02.2012 - 12 C 301/11

  Frage der Anwendbarkeit des § 569 Abs. 3 Nr. 2 S. 1 BGB bei Aufgabe der Wohnung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 10092/13

  In the meantime, the applicant initiated proceedings for compensation (no. 12 C 301/2011) for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the initial compensation proceedings and then proceedings for compensation for delays in that second case (no. 22 C 141/2015).
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 10092/13

  Complaints intended to be made before the Court should thus have first been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 66, Reports 1996-IV; Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200; or similarly Lesko v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 49941/06, 17 November 2009).
• EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 31380/08

  DEDIC v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 10092/13

  In those circumstances, taking into account the Court's settled case-law concerning the loss of victim status (see, among others, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-213, ECHR 2006-V; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; and Dedic v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 31380/08, 15 May 2011), the Court observes that although the domestic courts explicitly acknowledged an infringement of the Convention (a violation of the applicant's right to have his case heard within a reasonable time), they did not provide him with appropriate and sufficient redress.
• EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 21588/12

  KUDLICKA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 10092/13

  The Court notes that the main element of the criterion set by this provision is whether the applicant has suffered any significant disadvantage (see Adrian Mihai Ionescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 36659/04, 1 June 2010; Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010; and Kudlicka v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 21588/12, 3 March 2015).
• EGMR, 31.03.1992 - 18020/91

  X c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 10092/13

  Turning to the determination of the relevant periods to be taken into account with regard to the proceedings at issue, the Court finds that in the case of the compensation proceedings the relevant period begins with bringing a preliminary claim with the Ministry of Justice as that procedure is a prerequisite for bringing court proceedings for compensation (see Mocie v. France, no. 46096/99, § 21, 8 April 2003; X v. France, 31 March 1992, § 31, Series A no. 234-C; and, mutatis mutandis, Schmidtová v. the Czech Republic, no. 48568/99, §§ 54-55, 22 July 2003).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 10092/13

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of a 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 Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 19, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 49941/06

  LESKO v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 10092/13

  Complaints intended to be made before the Court should thus have first been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 66, Reports 1996-IV; Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200; or similarly Lesko v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 49941/06, 17 November 2009).
• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 36659/04

  IONESCU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 23563/07

  GAGLIANO GIORGI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97

  COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 69319/12

  HAJRUDINOVIC v. SLOVENIA