Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  A.K. v. LIECHTENSTEIN (No. 2)

  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  A.K. v. LIECHTENSTEIN (No. 2) - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  A.K. v. LIECHTENSTEIN

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 34 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 10.07.1984 - 8990/80

  GUINCHO c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2016 - 10722/13

  The Court further considers that this delay in the proceedings before the first-instance court could not be made up by the fact that the proceedings were not unduly delayed by the higher courts and that the overall length of the proceedings was not as such unreasonable (compare, mutatis mutandis, for cases in which protracted periods of inactivity in the proceedings led to a breach of Article 6 § 1, despite the fact that the overall duration of the proceedings was not as such unreasonable, Guincho v. Portugal, 10 July 1984, §§ 35-36 and 41, Series A no. 81; B. v. Austria, 28 March 1990, §§ 52-55, Series A no. 175, and Abdoella v. the Netherlands, 25 November 1992, §§ 22-25, Series A no. 248-A).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2016 - 10722/13

  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 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).
• EGMR, 17.05.2005 - 74456/01

  HORVATHOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2016 - 10722/13

  While there was no requirement that the domestic authorities should award the same sum by way of compensation as the Court would be likely to award under Article 41, the level of just satisfaction granted at national level nevertheless had to be reasonable under the particular circumstances of the case (see Ohlen v. Denmark (striking out), no. 63214/00, §§ 30-31, 24 February 2005; Horváthová v. Slovakia, no. 74456/01, § 32, 17 May 2005; and Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 202 and 213, ECHR 2006-V).

 
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2016 - 10722/13

  The Court further considers that this delay in the proceedings before the first-instance court could not be made up by the fact that the proceedings were not unduly delayed by the higher courts and that the overall length of the proceedings was not as such unreasonable (compare, mutatis mutandis, for cases in which protracted periods of inactivity in the proceedings led to a breach of Article 6 § 1, despite the fact that the overall duration of the proceedings was not as such unreasonable, Guincho v. Portugal, 10 July 1984, §§ 35-36 and 41, Series A no. 81; B. v. Austria, 28 March 1990, §§ 52-55, Series A no. 175, and Abdoella v. the Netherlands, 25 November 1992, §§ 22-25, Series A no. 248-A).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2016 - 10722/13

  A remedy is therefore 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 (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII; Hartman v. the Czech Republic, no. 53341/99, § 81, ECHR 2003-VIII (extracts); and Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 99, ECHR 2006-VII).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2016 - 10722/13

  The Court reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him/her of his/her status as a "victim" of a violation of a Convention right unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, inter alia, Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 66, Series A no. 51; Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III; and Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 63214/00

  OHLEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2016 - 10722/13

  While there was no requirement that the domestic authorities should award the same sum by way of compensation as the Court would be likely to award under Article 41, the level of just satisfaction granted at national level nevertheless had to be reasonable under the particular circumstances of the case (see Ohlen v. Denmark (striking out), no. 63214/00, §§ 30-31, 24 February 2005; Horváthová v. Slovakia, no. 74456/01, § 32, 17 May 2005; and Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 202 and 213, ECHR 2006-V).
• EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 51585/99

  HORVAT v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2016 - 10722/13

  In any event, the Court has repeatedly found that appeals to a higher authority could not be regarded as an effective remedy because, as the supervisory complaint in the present case, they did not generally give litigants a personal right to compel the State to exercise its supervisory powers (see, inter alia, Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, § 47, ECHR 2001-VIII; Hartman, cited above, § 66, and Sürmeli, cited above, § 109).

• EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 6780/18

  ROTH v. GERMANY

  Article 13 requires the provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an "arguable complaint" under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief (see, inter alia, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI; Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, § 157, ECHR 2006-IX, and A.K. v. Liechtenstein (no. 2), no. 10722/13, § 84, 18 February 2016).
• VerfGH Saarland, 21.01.2020 - Lv 15/19

  Missbrauchsverdacht an Uniklinik: Erweiterung des Untersuchungsausschusses …

  Denn der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte hat in seiner Entscheidung vom 18.2.2016 (10722/13 - NJOZ 2018, 476) festgestellt, dass die aus Art. 6 Abs. 2 der Konvention zum Schutz der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten (EMRK) folgende Unschuldsvermutung nicht nur für Gerichte, sondern für jeden Amtsträger gilt, der in amtlicher Eigenschaft - gewollt oder ungewollt - den Eindruck vermittelt, ein Betroffener sei eines Fehlverhaltens schuldig.
• EGMR, 01.06.2021 - 19237/16

  ASSOCIATION ACCEPT AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  The Court's assessment General principles 154. The Court reiterates that Article 13 requires the provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an "arguable complaint" under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief (see, inter alia, Kud?‚a v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI; Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, § 157, ECHR 2006-IX; and A.K. v. Liechtenstein (no. 2), no. 10722/13, § 84, 18 February 2016).
• EGMR, 02.03.2021 - 45202/14

  KOLESNIKOVA c. RUSSIE

  La Cour a également jugé que les craintes d'un requérant quant à l'impartialité des juges examinant son affaire étaient objectivement justifiées eu égard à la procédure que lesdits juges avaient suivie pour rejeter sa demande de récusation dirigée contre eux, tout en trouvant en même temps que les circonstances invoquées par l'intéressé à l'appui de sa demande n'étaient pas en elles-mêmes suffisantes pour mettre en doute l'impartialité du tribunal du point de vue objectif (A.K. c. Liechtenstein, no 38191/12, §§ 76-84, 9 juillet 2015, et A.K. c. Liechtenstein (no 2), no 10722/13, § 66, 18 février 2016).