|EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 54191/07|
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
Raudsepp v. Estonia
- EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 6905/09
PARFJONOV v. ESTONIAThe amendments entered into force on 1 September 2011 (see also Raudsepp v. Estonia, application no. 54191/07, judgment of 8 November 2011, § 34).
The Supreme Court declared the State Liability Act unconstitutional in so far as it does not provide for compensation in the circumstances in question, and awarded the complainant a sum of money (see also Raudsepp v. Estonia, application no. 54191/07, judgment of 8 November 2011, § 41).
In the meantime all persons concerned may apply for non-pecuniary damage based on the Supreme Court judgment of 22 March 2011 (and the Supreme Court decision of 30 December 2008, case no. 3-4-1-12-08, see Raudsepp v. Estonia, application no. 54191/07, judgment of 8 November 2011, § 36) directly to the court.
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Estonia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; Treial v. Estonia, no. 48129/99, 2 December 2003; Shchiglitsov v. Estonia, no. 35062/03, 18 January 2007; Saarekallas OÜ v. Estonia, no. 11548/04, 8 November 2007; Missenjov v. Estonia, no. 43276/06, 29 January 2009; and Raudsepp v. Estonia, no. 54191/07, 8 November 2011).
- EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 63362/09
RUMMI v. ESTONIAThe Court notes that the Government's arguments concerning the possibility of lodging a claim for damages with an administrative court related to excessive length of civil proceedings have been rejected in several cases (see Raudsepp v. Estonia, no. 54191/07, §§ 62-66, 8 November 2011, and the other cases referred to therein).
- EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 16587/10
KIISA v. ESTONIAThe Supreme Court further considered that the enactment of a special regulation for compensation for damage arising from criminal proceedings was required (for a more extensive summary of the judgment, see Raudsepp v. Estonia, no. 54191/07, §§ 38-42, 8 November 2011).
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.