Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DUMANOVSKI v. \

  Art. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 17, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 30.10.1998 - 28616/95

  STYRANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2005 - 13898/02

  However, in assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account must be taken of the state of proceedings on 10 April 1997 (see, among other authorities, Foti and Others v. Italy judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56, p. 18, § 53; Styranowski v. Poland, no. 28616/95, § 46, ECHR 1998-VIII).
• EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 7604/76

  FOTI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2005 - 13898/02

  However, in assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account must be taken of the state of proceedings on 10 April 1997 (see, among other authorities, Foti and Others v. Italy judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56, p. 18, § 53; Styranowski v. Poland, no. 28616/95, § 46, ECHR 1998-VIII).
• EGMR, 28.11.1984 - 8777/79

  RASMUSSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2005 - 13898/02

  Although the application of Article 14 does not necessarily presuppose a breach of those provisions - and to this extent it has an autonomous meaning - there can be no room for its application unless the facts at issue fall within the ambit of one or more of the latter (see, among many any authorities, the Rasmussen v. Denmark, judgment of 28 November 1984, Series A no. 87, § 29).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2005 - 13898/02

  As the Court has consistently held in its case-law (see, mutatis mutandis, Hentrich v. France, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, § 61), the workload in the national courts cannot be considered as a factor that can excuse the protracted length of the proceedings.

• EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 3129/04

  DIMITRIJOSKI v.

  The workload of that court to which the Government referred in their observations cannot be considered as an excuse for the protracted length of the proceedings (see Dumanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 13898/02, § 45, 8 December 2005).
• EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 13270/02

  DIKA v.

  However, the period which falls within the Court's jurisdiction began on 10 April 1997, when the recognition by the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia of the right of individual petition took effect (see Kostovska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 44353/02, § 34, 15 June 2006; Dumanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 13898/02, § 36, 8 December 2005).
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 66907/01

  DOCEVSKI v.

  However, the period which falls within the Court's jurisdiction began on 10 April 1997, when the recognition by the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia of the right of individual petition took effect (see Dumanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 13898/02, § 36, 8 December 2005; Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, § 50, ECHR 2001-VIII).