Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 44353/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2006,52462
EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 44353/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,52462)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 15.06.2006 - 44353/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,52462)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 15. Juni 2006 - 44353/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,52462)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,52462) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KOSTOVSKA v. \

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 6-1 (length) Violation of Art. 13 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

  • EGMR, 30.10.1998 - 28616/95

    STYRANOWSKI v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 44353/02
    In assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account must be taken of the state of proceedings on 10 April 1997 (see, among other authorities, Foti and Others v. Italy, judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56, p. 18, § 53; Styranowski v. Poland, no. 28616/95, § 46, ECHR 1998-VIII).
  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 44353/02
    The Court recalls that the correct interpretation of Article 13 of the Convention is that this provision guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged violation 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, 07.11.2000 - 49859/99

    REZGUI contre la FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 44353/02
    The Court's view is that the applicant could not have been unaware that her claim was below the statutory threshold, in particular as she had been represented by a lawyer (see Rezgui v. France (dec.), no. 49859/99, ECHR 2000-XI).
  • EGMR, 12.04.2001 - 41354/98

    ARVELAKIS v. GREECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 44353/02
    According to the Court's case-law, an award can be made in respect of costs and expenses only in so far as they have been actually and necessarily incurred by the applicant and are reasonable as to quantum (see, among other authorities, Arvelakis v. Greece, no. 41354/98, § 34, 12 April 2001; Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 79, ECHR 1999-II).
  • EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 7604/76

    FOTI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 44353/02
    In assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account must be taken of the state of proceedings on 10 April 1997 (see, among other authorities, Foti and Others v. Italy, judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56, p. 18, § 53; Styranowski v. Poland, no. 28616/95, § 46, ECHR 1998-VIII).
  • EGMR, 20.09.2022 - 7833/12

    POPADIC v. SERBIA

    It went on to examine the relevant criteria as follows: (i) while acknowledging its great relevance for the applicant, the case, which had been examined at three levels of jurisdiction, had been particularly complex, as it had required a decision on several matrimonial issues, several expert reports to be provided for that purpose and various documents, including on the parties" financial status; (ii) the applicant had contributed to the delay to an extent by failing to appear at the hearing of 24 January 2007 and also by lodging an appeal on points of law which was not available (see paragraphs 16 and 31 above; see also Kostovska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 44353/02, § 36, 15 June 2006); (iii) the domestic courts had, after an initial delay, involving also legislative changes in family law, regularly scheduled the hearings; and (iv) the fact that it had taken two years and seven months for the domestic courts to give a judgment at first instance, or four and a half years to terminate the proceedings, did not raise any issue in terms of the alleged violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time, particularly given that the father had had regular contact with his son in the meantime and that overnight stays and contact during the holidays had eventually been granted.

    The proceedings were eventually terminated on 29 August 2009 (see paragraph 57 above), the part of the proceedings concerning the appeal on points of law having been erroneously pursued and excluded (see paragraph 58 above; see also Rezgui v. France (dec.), no. 49859/99, ECHR 2000-XI, and Kostovska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 44353/02, § 36, 15 June 2006).

  • EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 25248/05

    NAUMOSKI v.

    The subsequent proceedings before the Supreme Court which ended by rejecting the applicant's appeal on points of law should not be taken into consideration, since they concerned a remedy which was not effective and should not therefore have been used (see Kostovska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 44353/02, § 36, 15 June 2006 and Kocarova v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 37018/03, 13 November 2006).
  • EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 13270/02

    DIKA v.

    However, the period which falls within the Court's jurisdiction began on 10 April 1997, when the recognition by the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia of the right of individual petition took effect (see Kostovska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 44353/02, § 34, 15 June 2006; Dumanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 13898/02, § 36, 8 December 2005).
  • EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 44221/02

    MIHAJLOSKI v.

    It further recalls that it is for the Contracting States to organise their legal systems in such a way that their courts can guarantee everyone's right to obtain a final decision on disputes relating to civil rights and obligations within a reasonable time (see Kostovska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 44353/02, § 41, 15 June 2006; Muti v. Italy, judgment of 23 March 1994, Series A no. 281-C, § 15; Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, § 59, ECHR 2001-VIII).
  • EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 12582/03

    SAVOV AND OTHERS v.

    According to the Court's case-law, an award can be made in respect of costs and expenses only in so far as they have been actually and necessarily incurred by the applicant and are reasonable as to quantum (see Kostovska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 44353/02, § 62, 15 June 2006; Arvelakis v. Greece, no. 41354/98, § 34, 12 April 2001; and Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 79, ECHR 1999-II).
  • EGMR, 13.11.2006 - 37018/03

    KOCAROVA v.

    Concerning Mr G.P."s appeal on points of law against the Court of Appeal's decision of August 2000, the Court considers that the time elapsed for the subsequent proceedings before the Supreme Court which ended on 24 March 2004 by rejecting his appeal on points of law should not be taken into consideration, as that remedy was without prospect of success as the claim was below the statutory threshold (see Kostovska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 44353/02, § 36, 15 June 2006; Rezgui v. France (dec.), no. 49859/99, ECHR 2000-XI).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht