Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CIZ v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2003 - 66142/01

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the criteria established by its case-law, particularly the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2003 - 66142/01

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 43377/98

  ZIACIK v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2003 - 66142/01

  It has found earlier that neither a petition under Article 130 (3) of the Constitution, as in force at the relevant time, nor a claim for damages under the State Liability Act of 1969 were capable of effectively redressing alleged violations of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Bánosová v. the Slovak Republic (dec.), no. 38798/98, 27 April 2000 and Žiacik v. Slovakia, no. 43377/98, § 33, 7 January 2003).

• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 34200/06

  KESZELI v. SLOVAKIA (No. 2)

  The Court also notes that, in respect of the alleged violation of the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time, it is irrelevant that the ordinary courts did not ultimately determine the merits of the case (see, mutatis mutandis, Cíz v. Slovakia, no. 66142/01, § 61, 14 October 2003).
• EGMR, 29.03.2005 - 51543/99

  MACKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  It has found earlier that neither a petition under Article 130 § 3 of the Constitution, as in force at the relevant time, nor a claim for damages under the State Liability Act of 1969 were capable of effectively redressing alleged violations of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Bánosová v. the Slovak Republic (dec.), no. 38798/98, 27 April 2000, Žiacik v. Slovakia, no. 43377/98, § 33, 7 January 2003 and Cíz v. Slovakia, no. 66142/01, §§ 74 and 75, 14 October 2003).