Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OLKINUORA AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Art. 6 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 24549/03

  MICHALAK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 1420/09

  Furthermore, the recent domestic court decisions referred to above, by which persons complaining about the length of proceedings before general courts obtained relief of a compensatory nature, showed that the remedy in question was effective not only in law, but also in practice (see Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, § 41, ECHR 2005-V; and Michalak v. Poland (dec.), no. 24549/03, § 42, 1 March 2005).
• EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 5238/07

  AHLSKOG v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 1420/09

  The Court points out that it has already stated in the context of the case Ahlskog v. Finland (dec.), (no. 5238/07, 9 November 2010) that the new compensation remedy available in Finland under the Act on Compensation for Excessive Duration of Judicial Proceedings has empowered the general courts to grant financial compensation for non-pecuniary damage if they find that the court proceedings have been unreasonably lengthy.
• EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 57984/00

  ANDRASIK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 1420/09

  57984/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00, 68563/01 and 60226/00, ECHR 2002-IX), Poland (see Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), cited above, § 40; and Michalak v. Poland (dec.), cited above, § 41) and most recently, in respect of Finland (see Ahlskog v. Finland (dec.), cited above, § 79).

 
• EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

  BRUSCO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 1420/09

  Thus, the Court has held that applicants in cases against Italy which concerned length of proceedings, and which had not been declared admissible, should be required to have recourse to the remedy introduced by the "Pinto Act" notwithstanding that it was enacted after their applications had been filed with the Court (see, for example, Giacometti and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 34939/97, ECHR 2001-XII; or Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01

  NOGOLICA c. CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 1420/09

  A similar decision was taken in respect of cases introduced against Croatia following the entry into force of a constitutional amendment permitting the Constitutional Court to provide redress of both a preventive and a compensatory nature to persons complaining about undue delays in judicial proceedings (see Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

  CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 1420/09

  Furthermore, the recent domestic court decisions referred to above, by which persons complaining about the length of proceedings before general courts obtained relief of a compensatory nature, showed that the remedy in question was effective not only in law, but also in practice (see Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, § 41, ECHR 2005-V; and Michalak v. Poland (dec.), no. 24549/03, § 42, 1 March 2005).
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  BAUMANN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 1420/09

  However, this rule is subject to exceptions which may be justified by the particular circumstances of each case (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001-V (extracts)).