Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SCHRADE v. GEORGIA

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SCHRADE v. GEORGIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 15016/07

  The Court's assessment 46. According to the case-law of the Court on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the 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, Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 143, 29 November 2016; 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, 21.12.2006 - 36545/02

  MOROZ AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 15016/07

  To start with, the Court has already dealt with the question of the effectiveness of disciplinary actions against individual judges, albeit in relation to other member States, and found that when a disciplinary sanction concerned only the personal position of the responsible judge and in the absence of "direct and immediate consequence for the proceedings which have given rise to the complaint" it was not an effective for the purpose of speeding up the proceedings (see Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, § 62, 29 January 2004; Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 55870/00, § 49, 18 July 2006, and Moroz and Others v. Ukraine, no. 36545/02, § 47, 21 December 2006; see also, mutatis mutandis, Constantin Oprea v. Romania, no. 24724/03, § 41, 8 November 2007).
• EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 55870/00

  EFIMENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 15016/07

  To start with, the Court has already dealt with the question of the effectiveness of disciplinary actions against individual judges, albeit in relation to other member States, and found that when a disciplinary sanction concerned only the personal position of the responsible judge and in the absence of "direct and immediate consequence for the proceedings which have given rise to the complaint" it was not an effective for the purpose of speeding up the proceedings (see Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, § 62, 29 January 2004; Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 55870/00, § 49, 18 July 2006, and Moroz and Others v. Ukraine, no. 36545/02, § 47, 21 December 2006; see also, mutatis mutandis, Constantin Oprea v. Romania, no. 24724/03, § 41, 8 November 2007).

 
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 6571/05

  PANTALEON c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 15016/07

  At the same time, while the case did not belong to a category that by its own nature would call for a special expedition (see Sürmeli, cited above, § 133, ECHR 2006-VII), what was at stake to the applicant still required a reasonably expeditious decision, particularly given his age (compare Pantaleon v. Greece, no. 6571/05, § 25, 10 May 2007).
• EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 24724/03

  CONSTANTIN OPREA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 15016/07

  To start with, the Court has already dealt with the question of the effectiveness of disciplinary actions against individual judges, albeit in relation to other member States, and found that when a disciplinary sanction concerned only the personal position of the responsible judge and in the absence of "direct and immediate consequence for the proceedings which have given rise to the complaint" it was not an effective for the purpose of speeding up the proceedings (see Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, § 62, 29 January 2004; Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 55870/00, § 49, 18 July 2006, and Moroz and Others v. Ukraine, no. 36545/02, § 47, 21 December 2006; see also, mutatis mutandis, Constantin Oprea v. Romania, no. 24724/03, § 41, 8 November 2007).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97

  COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 15016/07

  The Court's assessment 46. According to the case-law of the Court on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the 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, Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 143, 29 November 2016; 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, 28.01.2014 - 15152/12

  VEISS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 15016/07

  In any event, the relevant legislation seems to indicate that this remedy was not independent of discretionary action by the authorities, as the decision whether or not to initiate proceedings had to be taken by a relevant judicial official; no appeal against a refusal not to initiate those proceedings was available (see, mutatis mutandis, Veiss v. Latvia, no. 15152/12, § 68, 28 January 2014, and Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, § 63, ECHR 2005-X; see also, mutatis mutandis, Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, § 41, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75529/01

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 15016/07

  From the materials the Government submitted (see paragraph 38 above) it is unclear whether the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings had any effect whatsoever on the length of the original proceedings (see, for example, Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 106, ECHR 2006-VII, where the Court concluded that the Government had failed to demonstrate that the possibility of complaining about length of proceedings to the Federal Constitutional Court could lead to them being expedited; see also, mutatis mutandis, Belinger v. Slovenia (dec.), 42320/98, 2 October 2001).

• EGMR, 21.03.2024 - 27178/21

  KADZANAIA v. GEORGIA

  As for the possibility of instituting disciplinary proceedings against the judiciary, the Court has already found that the disciplinary proceedings suggested by the Government is not an effective remedy (see Schrade v. Georgia [Committee], no. 15016/07, § 42, 11 March 2021).