Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BARTHOFER v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) (französisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 41113/08

  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 following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

  König ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 41113/08

  The Court considers that the period to be taken into consideration began on 24 September 2003 when the Regional Land Reform Board dismissed the applicants" partition request, as it was at that moment that a "dispute" arose within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, § 98, Series A no. 27 and Morscher v. Austria, no. 54039/00, § 38, 5 February 2004) and ended on 3 November 2009, when the District Agricultural Authority closed the proceedings on the partition request.
• EGMR, 05.02.2004 - 54039/00

  MORSCHER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 41113/08

  The Court considers that the period to be taken into consideration began on 24 September 2003 when the Regional Land Reform Board dismissed the applicants" partition request, as it was at that moment that a "dispute" arose within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, § 98, Series A no. 27 and Morscher v. Austria, no. 54039/00, § 38, 5 February 2004) and ended on 3 November 2009, when the District Agricultural Authority closed the proceedings on the partition request.

 
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 14206/02

  KERN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 41113/08

  However the Court has already held in similar cases that a detailed examination as to whether the applicants could have made more efficient use of that remedy by using it at other stages of the proceedings, would overstretch the duties incumbent on applicants pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Kern v. Austria, no. 14206/02, § 49, 24 February 2005 and Klug v. Austria, no. 33928/05, § 31, 15 January 2009, both concerning land consolidation proceedings during which the applicants had successfully made use of the request for transfer of jurisdiction once or twice, respectively, and the Government had argued that, in addition, they should have done so at other stages of the proceedings).
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 74159/01

  EGGER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 41113/08

  The Court reiterates that such a request constitutes, in principle, an effective remedy which has to be used in respect of complaints about the length of proceedings before administrative authorities (see Egger v. Austria (dec.), no. 74159/01, 9 October 2003).
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33928/05

  KLUG v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 41113/08

  However the Court has already held in similar cases that a detailed examination as to whether the applicants could have made more efficient use of that remedy by using it at other stages of the proceedings, would overstretch the duties incumbent on applicants pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Kern v. Austria, no. 14206/02, § 49, 24 February 2005 and Klug v. Austria, no. 33928/05, § 31, 15 January 2009, both concerning land consolidation proceedings during which the applicants had successfully made use of the request for transfer of jurisdiction once or twice, respectively, and the Government had argued that, in addition, they should have done so at other stages of the proceedings).
• EGMR, 07.12.1999 - 38952/97

  BOUILLY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 41113/08

  The Court accepts, however, that unreasonable delays in proceedings may involve an increase in an applicant's costs (see Klug, cited above, § 50; Kern, cited above, § 70 both with reference to Bouilly v. France, no. 38952/97, § 33, 7 December 1999).