Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MORBY contre le LUXEMBOURG

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MORBY v. LUXEMBOURG

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (35)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 27156/02

  However, the Convention institutions have accepted that this general rule might be subject to an exception when the national authorities have acknowledged either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 30, § 66, and Beck v. Norway, no. 26390/95, 26 June 2001).

• EGMR, 17.11.2005 - 72438/01

  Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung (Umfang der Prüfung des EGMR nach nationaler …

  Luxemburg (Entscheidung), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 27156/02, EuGHMR 2003-XI; Ohlen .
• EGMR, 09.02.2006 - 73443/01

  FREIMANIS ET LIDUMS c. LETTONIE

  Cette règle générale peut notamment souffrir une exception lorsque les autorités nationales ont reconnu de façon suffisamment explicite le non-respect de l'exigence du délai raisonnable et ont accordé une réparation en réduisant la peine d'une manière expresse et mesurable (voir Beck c. Norvège, no 26390/95, § 27, 26 juin 2001, Wejrup c. Danemark (déc.), no 49126/99, CEDH 2002-IV, et Morby c. Luxembourg (déc.), no 27156/02, CEDH 2003-XI).
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 19348/04

  Sorvisto ./. Finnland

  However, this general rule is subject to an exception when the national authorities have acknowledged in a sufficiently clear way the failure to observe the reasonable-time requirement and have afforded redress by reducing the sentence in an express and measurable manner (see Eckle v. Germany, cited above, § 66, Beck v. Norway, no. 26390/95, § 27, 26 June 2001, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 77, ECHR 2006-, and Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI).

 
• EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 5770/05

  SOMOGYI v. HUNGARY

  Accordingly, he can no longer claim to be a victim, for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention, of a violation of Article 6 § 1 (see Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI; Kalmár v. Hungary, no. 32783/03, § 27, 3 October 2006; Dányádi v. Hungary (dec.), no. 10656/03, 6 July 2006; Tamás Kovács v. Hungary, no. 67660/01, § 26, 28 September 2004; Lie and Berntsen v. Norway (dec.), no. 25130/94, 16 December 1999).
• EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 73481/01

  BOCHEV v. BULGARIA

  However, this rule is subject to an exception when the national authorities have acknowledged in a sufficiently clear way the failure to observe the reasonable-time requirement of Article 6 § 1 and have afforded redress by reducing the sentence in an express and measurable manner (see, as recent authorities, Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI; Mladenov v. Bulgaria, no. 58775/00, § 31, 12 October 2006; Sheremetov v. Bulgaria, no. 16880/02, § 33, 22 May 2008; and Menelaou v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 32071/04, 12 June 2008).
• EGMR, 03.05.2005 - 16308/02

  PECHEUR c. LUXEMBOURG

  Les organes de la Convention ont cependant admis que cette règle générale peut souffrir une exception lorsque les autorités nationales ont, explicitement ou en substance, reconnu puis réparé la violation de la Convention » (Eckle c. Allemagne, arrêt du 15 juillet 1982, série A no 51, p. 30, § 66 ; Beck c. Norvège, no 26390/95, arrêt du 26 juin 2001 ; Morby c. Luxembourg (déc.), no 27156/02, CEDH 2003-XI).
• EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 60035/12

  ZALOILO v. THE NETHERLANDS

  That being so, and even assuming that an issue could arise under Article 5 of the Convention, the Court is minded to find that the applicant can no longer claim to be a "victim" for purposes of Article 34 of the Convention in this respect (see, among many other authorities, Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI, and M.A. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 35242/04, ECHR 2005-VIII).
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 2834/09

  KÜCHER v. AUSTRIA

  Further, the Court notes that even though the Independent Administrative Tribunal had considered the length of the proceedings as a mitigating factor when fixing the fine, it had not properly acknowledged a violation of the Convention, neither has it specified the redress awarded to the applicant (compare, among many other authorities, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 186, ECHR 2006-V, and Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI).
• EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 708/13

  VISAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  However, this general rule might be subject to an exception when the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 66-70, Series A no. 51, Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI, Sheremetov v. Bulgaria, no. 16880/02, § 33, 22 May 2008 and Nachev v. Bulgaria, no. 27402/05, § 30, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 27402/05

  NACHEV v. BULGARIA

  According to the Court's case-law, the reduction of a sentence on the grounds of the excessive length of proceedings does not in principle deprive the individual concerned of his status as a victim unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, in a sufficiently clear way a violation of Article 6 § 1 and have afforded appropriate redress (see, among other authorities, Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 66-70, Series A no. 51, Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI; Mladenov v. Bulgaria, no. 58775/00, § 31, 12 October 2006 and Sheremetov v. Bulgaria, no. 16880/02, § 33, 22 May 2008).
• EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 17604/05

  GOLDMANN AND SZENASZKY v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 43180/04

  JUSSI UOTI v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 39543/04

  DANKER v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 30.09.2008 - 1509/05

  TERZIISKI AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 32783/03

  KALMAR v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 06.07.2006 - 10656/03

  DANYADI v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 26939/06

  TUCALIUC v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 34215/11

  KOLACZYK AND KWIATKOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 27.08.2013 - 61403/10

  B.G. v. POLAND
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 43104/07

  MÁRTON v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 30806/07

  BESSENYEI v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 26813/09

  RAUTONEN v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 18.06.2009 - 20198/05

  MOLLAZEINAL v. CYPRUS
• EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 22920/05

  GNÁNDT v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 16.09.2008 - 8185/05

  LEHEL v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 61257/00

  VASILEV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 31.10.2006 - 41463/02

  FOLDES AND FOLDESNE HAJLIK v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 24.01.2006 - 22661/02

  KOVACS v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 30.08.2005 - 38871/02

  WONG c. LUXEMBOURG
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 29388/11

  BORGES DE BRITO v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 58775/00

  MLADENOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 24376/08

  DANILO KOVACIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 41664/06

  GEDA v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 11.03.2010 - 3809/06

  BURGSTALLER v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 68454/01

  HADJIISKI et ILIEV c. BULGARIE