Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KRANZ v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 10.09.2002 - 6214/02
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 6214/02

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

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 6214/02

  Furthermore, the Court refers to its case-law to the effect that no specific remedy in respect of the excessive length of proceedings exists under Polish law (see D.M. v. Poland, no. 13557/02, §§ 47-50, 14 October 2003; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 160, ECHR 2000-XI).

  Consequently, there is no justification for making award to him under that head (see, mutatis mutandis, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no 30210/96, § 164, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 6214/02

  It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 6214/02

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the criteria established by its case-law, particularly the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII, Humen v. Poland cited above, § 60).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 6214/02

  It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 14.10.2003 - 13557/02

  D.M. v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 6214/02

  Furthermore, the Court refers to its case-law to the effect that no specific remedy in respect of the excessive length of proceedings exists under Polish law (see D.M. v. Poland, no. 13557/02, §§ 47-50, 14 October 2003; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 160, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 4532/04

  ROMOKHOV v. RUSSIA

  In sum, the Court considers that the Government have not substantiated their claim that the remedy or remedies the applicant allegedly failed to exhaust were effective ones (see, among other authorities, Kranz v. Poland, no. 6214/02, § 23, 17 February 2004).
• EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 24202/05

  VELIYEV v. RUSSIA

  In the absence of such evidence and having regard to the above-mentioned principles, the Court finds that the Government did not substantiate their claim that the remedy or remedies the applicant had allegedly failed to exhaust were effective ones (see, among other authorities, Kranz v. Poland, no. 6214/02, § 23, 17 February 2004, and Skawinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 42096/98, 4 March 2003).
• EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 918/02

  SOLOVYEVY v. RUSSIA

  In the absence of such evidence, and having regard to the relevant principles, the Court finds that the Government have not substantiated their claim that the remedy or remedies the applicant allegedly failed to exhaust were effective ones (see, among other authorities, Kranz v. Poland, no. 6214/02, § 23, 17 February 2004, and Skawinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 42096/98, 4 March 2003).

 
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 13173/02

  MUKHUTDINOV v. RUSSIA

  In the absence of such evidence and having regard to the above-mentioned principles, the Court finds that the Government did not substantiate their claim that the remedy or remedies the applicant had allegedly failed to exhaust were effective ones (see, among other authorities, Kranz v. Poland, no. 6214/02, § 23, 17 February 2004, and Skawinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 42096/98, 4 March 2003).
• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 14797/02

  ALEKSANDR MATVEYEV v. RUSSIA

  In the absence of such evidence and having regard to the above­mentioned principles, the Court finds that the Government have not substantiated their claim that the remedy or remedies the applicant allegedly failed to exhaust were effective ones (see, among other authorities, Kranz v. Poland, no. 6214/02, § 23, 17 February 2004, and Skawinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 42096/98, 4 March 2003).
• EGMR, 16.09.2010 - 4176/03

  DANILIN v. RUSSIA

  In the absence of such evidence and having regard to the above­mentioned principles, the Court finds that the Government have not substantiated their claim that the remedy or remedies the applicant allegedly failed to exhaust were effective ones (see, among other authorities, Kranz v. Poland, no. 6214/02, § 23, 17 February 2004, and Skawinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 42096/98, 4 March 2003).