Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ILIC v. SERBIA

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13+6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
  Violation of P1-1 Violation of Art. 6-1 (length of civil proceedings) Violation of Art. 13+6-1 No separate issue under Art. 6-1 (non-enforcement) or under 13+P1-1 Remainder inadmissible (impartiality) Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses - ...

Wird zitiert von ... (24)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 30132/04

  It follows, inter alia, that a judgment in which the Court finds a breach imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in their domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found and to redress, in so far as possible, the effects thereof (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 39299/02

  MUZEVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 30132/04

  The Court considers, therefore, taking into account the fact that there is apparently still no final domestic judgment concerning the pecuniary damage sought, that the applicant's claim must be met by the Government ensuring, through appropriate means, the speedy enforcement of the final eviction order of 17 August 1994 (see, mutatis mutandis, Muzevic v. Croatia, no. 39299/02, § 91, 16 November 2006; see also paragraphs 10 and 11 above).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 30132/04

  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 v. Germany [GC], cited above, § 99).

 
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 30132/04

  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 v. Germany [GC], cited above, § 99).
• EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 59498/00

  BURDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 30132/04

  The Court considers that the applicant's repossession claim is therefore "sufficiently established" so as to amount to a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 40, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75529/01

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 30132/04

  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, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 30132/04

  It follows that the issue of whether a fair balance has been struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights (see the Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 26, § 69) becomes relevant only if and when it has been established that the interference in question has satisfied the requirement of lawfulness and was not arbitrary (see Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II).

• EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06

  McFARLANE v. IRELAND

  Accordingly, there is no evidence that the proposed remedy would have been speedier than ordinary civil suits and it thus could have lasted for several years through two jurisdictions (Ilic v. Serbia, no. 30132/04, 9 October 2007).
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 6282/06

  BJELAJAC v. SERBIA

  The relevant provisions of domestic legislation regarding the enforcement of judgments are cited in EVT Company v. Serbia (no. 3102/05, 21 June 2007) and Ilic v. Serbia (no. 30132/04, 9 October 2007).

  Finally, the Court notes that this conclusion makes it unnecessary to ascertain whether a fair balance has been struck between the demands of the general interest of the community, on the one hand, and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights on the other (see Iatridis v. Greece [GC], cited above, § 58 and Ilic v. Serbia, no. 30132/04, § 75, 9 October 2007).

• EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 18369/07

  JOSIPOVIC v. SERBIA

  The Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for a State Party under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention concerning the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Ilic v. Serbia, no. 30132/04, 9 October 2007).

 
• EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 45394/06

  KRSTIC v. SERBIA

  Such a conclusion makes it unnecessary to determine whether a fair balance was struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of individual rights (see Iatridis c. Greece [GC], no 31107/96, § 58 and 62, ECHR 1999-II; Ambruosi v. Italy, no. 31227/96, §§ 28-34, 19 October 2000; and Ilic v. Serbia, no. 30132/04, § 75, 9 October 2007).
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 51743/07

  MILOSAVLJEVIC v. SERBIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Serbia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention concerning the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Ilic v. Serbia, no. 30132/04, 9 October 2007).
• EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 37852/06

  FILIPOVIC v. SERBIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Serbia, its practice concerning complaints about the one's right to have a final decision enforced (see, for example, Hornsby v. Greece, judgment of 19 March 1997, Reports 1997-II, p. 511, § 41; Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III; Ilic v. Serbia, no. 30132/04, 9 October 2007).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 44694/06

  PAP v. SERBIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Serbia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of the right to have one's domestic decision enforced (see, for example, Hornsby v. Greece, judgment of 19 March 1997, Reports 1997-II, p. 511, § 41; Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III; Ilic v. Serbia, no. 30132/04, 9 October 2007).
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 17395/08

  ZLATKOVIC v. SERBIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Serbia, 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-....; Stevanovic v. Serbia, no. 26642/05, §§ 53-55, 9 October 2007; and Ilic v. Serbia, no. 30132/04, §§ 85-89, 9 October 2007).
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 46749/06

  PESIC v. SERBIA

  The Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for a State Party under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Ilic v. Serbia, no. 30132/04, 9 October 2007).
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 43014/06

  SPICA v. SERBIA

  The Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for a State Party under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Ilic v. Serbia, no. 30132/04, 9 October 2007).
• EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 40053/06

  MIRKOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 39321/06

  SAVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 25377/08

  KARISIK v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 28339/06

  PESIKAN v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 47927/06

  SARCEVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 31149/06

  JANJIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 48145/06

  RAJKOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 2545/05

  PUZOVIC AND MEDAREVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 19735/05

  UNIVERTURS-LIDER-LOGISTIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 42284/06

  BEKKER-ISAKOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 17.03.2009 - 46616/07

  KNEZEVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 04.11.2008 - 17234/04

  ZIVKOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 27919/05

  MARKOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 22.04.2008 - 9071/06

  STOJANOVIC AND 2 OTHERS v. SERBIA