Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 22929/06 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,66435) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
HAMMEL v. SLOVAKIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 MRK
Partly struck out of the list Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96
FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 22929/06
The Court has established in a number of cases its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-....). - EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 25149/03
Rechtssache V. H. gegen die NIEDERLANDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 22929/06
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005); Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden ((striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006) and Van Houten v. the Netherlands ((striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX). - EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 63959/00
KURIL v. SLOVAKIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 22929/06
Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases against the Slovak Republic (see, for example, Kuril v. Slovakia, no. 63959/00, §§ 35-43, 3 October 2006, Rapos v. Slovakia, no. 25763/02, §§ 27-34, 20 May 2008, or Bic v. Slovakia, no. 23865/03, §§ 33-41, 4 November 2008).
- EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 25763/02
RAPOS v. SLOVAKIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 22929/06
Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases against the Slovak Republic (see, for example, Kuril v. Slovakia, no. 63959/00, §§ 35-43, 3 October 2006, Rapos v. Slovakia, no. 25763/02, §§ 27-34, 20 May 2008, or Bic v. Slovakia, no. 23865/03, §§ 33-41, 4 November 2008). - EGMR, 04.11.2008 - 23865/03
BIC v. SLOVAKIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 22929/06
Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases against the Slovak Republic (see, for example, Kuril v. Slovakia, no. 63959/00, §§ 35-43, 3 October 2006, Rapos v. Slovakia, no. 25763/02, §§ 27-34, 20 May 2008, or Bic v. Slovakia, no. 23865/03, §§ 33-41, 4 November 2008). - EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 53487/99
MERIAKRI v. MOLDOVA
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 22929/06
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005); Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden ((striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006) and Van Houten v. the Netherlands ((striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX).