Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BORGES DE BRITO v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 14, Art. 14+6, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 27156/02

  MORBY contre le LUXEMBOURG

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 29388/11

  The Court has accepted a reduction of sentence as appropriate compensation where it was satisfied that the length of proceedings had been taken into account when reducing the sentence in an express and measurable manner (as to the principle, see Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 66, Series A no. 51, and Beck v. Norway, no. 26390/95, § 27, 26 June 2001; as examples of such a remedy in practice, see Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI; and Leif Graaskov Jensen v Denmark, no. 48470/99, 20 September 2001).
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75529/01

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 29388/11

  It should be remembered in this connection that the "effectiveness" of a "remedy" within the meaning of Article 13 does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see, among many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], cited above, § 152; and Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 98, ECHR 2006-VII).
• EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 21906/04

  KAFKARIS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 29388/11

  The Court points out that there is a fundamental difference between a determinate sentence of whatever length, which can be reduced by a measurable proportion, and a life sentence, which although it may be cut short by a pardon is in principle indeterminate and limited only by the life span of the convict (see Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 165, ECHR 2008).

 
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 29388/11

  Article 35 § 1 requires that the complaints intended to be made subsequently at Strasbourg should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law and, further, that any procedural means that might prevent a breach of the Convention should have been used (see, among many other authorities, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 66, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 37, ECHR 1999-I; Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 69, 17 September 2009; and Sabeh El Leil v. France [GC], no. 34869/05, § 32, 29 June 2011).
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 34880/12

  RAMAER AND VAN WILLIGEN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 29388/11

  Discrimination means treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in similar situations (see, among many other authorities, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 32, Series A no. 31; Moustaquim v. Belgium, 18 February 1991, § 49, Series A no. 193; National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom, 23 October 1997, § 88, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII; D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 175, ECHR 2007-XII; and as a recent example, Ramaer and Van Willigen v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 34880/12, § 91, 23 October 2012).
• EGMR, 10.09.2013 - 47595/08

  WIREDU v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 29388/11

  Nor is it axiomatic that a violation of the "reasonable time" requirement contained in Article 6 § 1 entitles its victim to compensation for non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result (see, as examples involving such violations found by the Court itself, Girolami v. Italy, 19 February 1991, § 19, Series A no. 196-E; Abdoella v. the Netherlands, 25 November 1992, § 28, Series A no. 248-A; and Bunkate v. the Netherlands, 26 May 1993, § 25, Series A no. 248-B; as an example involving such a violation found by a domestic court, Wiredu v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 47595/08, § 27, 10 September 2013).
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 29388/11

  Discrimination means treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in similar situations (see, among many other authorities, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 32, Series A no. 31; Moustaquim v. Belgium, 18 February 1991, § 49, Series A no. 193; National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom, 23 October 1997, § 88, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII; D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 175, ECHR 2007-XII; and as a recent example, Ramaer and Van Willigen v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 34880/12, § 91, 23 October 2012).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 29388/11

  The Court has accepted a reduction of sentence as appropriate compensation where it was satisfied that the length of proceedings had been taken into account when reducing the sentence in an express and measurable manner (as to the principle, see Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 66, Series A no. 51, and Beck v. Norway, no. 26390/95, § 27, 26 June 2001; as examples of such a remedy in practice, see Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI; and Leif Graaskov Jensen v Denmark, no. 48470/99, 20 September 2001).
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12313/86

  MOUSTAQUIM c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 29388/11

  Discrimination means treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in similar situations (see, among many other authorities, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 32, Series A no. 31; Moustaquim v. Belgium, 18 February 1991, § 49, Series A no. 193; National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom, 23 October 1997, § 88, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII; D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 175, ECHR 2007-XII; and as a recent example, Ramaer and Van Willigen v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 34880/12, § 91, 23 October 2012).