Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BARRY v. IRELAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (length) Violation of Art. 13 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 18273/04

  In these circumstances, the Court does not consider it necessary to make any provision in respect of the costs incurred in the domestic proceedings under Article 41 at the present time (Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom (no. 68416/01, § 105, ECHR 2005-...).
• EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 36536/02

  B. AND L. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 18273/04

  33985/96 and 33986/96, § 28, ECHR 2000-IX and, more recently, B. and L. v. the United Kingdom, no. 36536/02, § 50, 13 September 2005).
• EGMR, 02.12.1999 - 32082/96

  Überprüfung der Länge eines in Portugal anhängigen Strafverfahrens durch den …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 18273/04

  "[P]articular attention should be paid to, inter alia, the speediness of the remedial action itself, it not being excluded that the adequate nature of the remedy can be undermined by its excessive duration (Tomé Mota v. Portugal (dec.), no. 32082/96, ECHR 1999-IX, and Paulino Tomás, cited above).

 
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 18273/04

  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, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 18273/04

  In the context of excessive length of proceedings, Article 13 therefore offers an alternative: a remedy will be considered "effective" if it can be used either to expedite a decision by the courts dealing with the case, or to provide the litigant with adequate redress for delays that have already occurred (Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, ECHR 2002-VIII).".
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 18273/04

  "In criminal matters, the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 § 1 begins to run as soon as a person is "charged"; this may occur on a date prior to the case coming before the trial court (see, for example, the Deweer judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 22, par. 42), such as the date of arrest, the date when the person concerned was officially notified that he would be prosecuted or the date when preliminary investigations were opened (see the Wemhoff judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, pp. 26-27, par. 19, the Neumeister judgment of the same date, Series A no. 8, p. 41, par. 18, and the Ringeisen judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 45, par. 110).
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 18273/04

  "In criminal matters, the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 § 1 begins to run as soon as a person is "charged"; this may occur on a date prior to the case coming before the trial court (see, for example, the Deweer judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 22, par. 42), such as the date of arrest, the date when the person concerned was officially notified that he would be prosecuted or the date when preliminary investigations were opened (see the Wemhoff judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, pp. 26-27, par. 19, the Neumeister judgment of the same date, Series A no. 8, p. 41, par. 18, and the Ringeisen judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 45, par. 110).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 18273/04

  "In criminal matters, the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 § 1 begins to run as soon as a person is "charged"; this may occur on a date prior to the case coming before the trial court (see, for example, the Deweer judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 22, par. 42), such as the date of arrest, the date when the person concerned was officially notified that he would be prosecuted or the date when preliminary investigations were opened (see the Wemhoff judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, pp. 26-27, par. 19, the Neumeister judgment of the same date, Series A no. 8, p. 41, par. 18, and the Ringeisen judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 45, par. 110).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 18273/04

  In Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, § 73 the Court said:.
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 18273/04

  In so far as Article 13 is invoked with Article 14, these complaints do not therefore involve any arguable claim of a breach of the requirements of Article 14 (Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131 and, more recently, Douglas-Williams v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 56413/00, 8 January 2002).
• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 30.05.2013 - C-58/12

  Groupe Gascogne / Kommission - Rechtsmittel - Wettbewerb - Kartell - Branche der …

  84 - Der EGMR hat gelegentlich Ersatz des immateriellen Schadens zugesprochen, wenn er zu der Auffassung gelangt, dass der Beschwerdeführer auf die Entscheidungsverzögerung zurückzuführende Not und Frustration erlitten haben muss - vgl. z. B. Urteil des EGMR vom 15. Dezember 2005, Barry/Irland (Beschwerde Nr. 18273/04, § 61 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung).
• EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 43838/07

  O. v. IRELAND

  In January 2008 the applicant applied to stay his prosecution pending judgment in the present application having regard to a stay on prosecution obtained in the Barry case (see Barry v. Ireland, no. 18273/04, 15 December 2005).

  The Court has already found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (for example, Barry v. Ireland, no. 18273/04, 15 December 2005 and the above-cited McFarlane case).

• EGMR, 30.04.2020 - 72060/17

  KEANEY v. IRELAND

  [2] See variously Doran v. Ireland, no. 50389/99, ECHR 2003 X (extracts) (civil; plus Article 13); McMullen v. Ireland, no. 42297/98, 29 July 2004 (civil); O'Reilly and Others v. Ireland, no. 54725/00, 29 July 2004 (civil; plus Article 13); Barry v. Ireland, no. 18273/04, 15 December 2005 (criminal; plus Article 13); McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, 10 September 2010 (criminal; plus Article 13); Superwood Holdings Plc and Others v. Ireland, no. 7812/04, 8 September 2011 (civil); T.H. v. Ireland, no. 37868/06, 8 December 2011 (criminal; plus Article 13); O. v. Ireland, no. 43838/07, 19 January 2012 (criminal); C. v. Ireland, no. 24643/08, 1 March 2012 (criminal); Rooney v. Ireland, no. 32614/10, 31 October 2013 (civil; plus Article 13); Healy v. Ireland, no. 27291/16, 18 January 2018 (civil; plus Article 13); O'Leary v. Ireland, no. 45580/16, 14 February 2019 (civil; plus Article 13).

 
• EGMR, 09.05.2007 - 42541/02

  J. S. gegen Deutschland

  Es kann davon ausgegangen werden, dass ein Beschwerdeführer in dem Moment "erheblich betroffen" ist, wenn seine Räumlichkeiten durchsucht werden (…siehe Strategies et Communications et Demoulin ./. Belgien Individualbeschwerde Nr. 37370/97, Rdnr. 42, 15. Juli 2002; Barry ./. Irland Individualbeschwerde Nr. 18273/04, Rdnr. 35, 15. Dezember 2005).
• EGMR, 08.12.2011 - 37868/06

  T.H. v. IRELAND

  The Court has already found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (for example, Barry v. Ireland, no. 18273/04, 15 December 2005 and the above-cited McFarlane case).
• EGMR, 06.11.2006 - 51288/99

  K. A. gegen Deutschland

  Daher ist er der Meinung, dass der zu berücksichtigende Zeitraum am 13. Mai 1997 beginnt, d.h. dem Zeitpunkt, an dem die erste Durchsuchung der Wohnung des Beschwerdeführers (siehe Stratégies et communications und Dumoulin ./. Belgien , Nr. 37370/97, Rdnr. 42, 15. Juli 2002, und Barry ./. Irland , Nr. 18273/04, Rdnr. 35, 15. Dezember 2005) und seine erste Vernehmung als Beschuldigter stattfand.