Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DOLHAR v. SLOVENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 13 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 66822/01

  Given its jurisdiction ratione temporis, the Court can only consider the period which has elapsed since that date, although it will have regard to the stage reached in the proceedings in the domestic courts on that date (see, for instance, Belinger, cited above, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 123, ECHR 2000-XI).

  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, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

  Schießbefehl

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 66822/01

  Moreover, it is primarily for the national administrative and judicial authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see, inter alia, Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97, 44801/98, § 49, ECHR 2001-II, and Houfova v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 58177/00, 1 July 2003).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 66822/01

  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 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, 03.07.2001 - 44142/98

  BUGARSKI ET VON VUCHETICH contre la SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 66822/01

  By way of contrast, the hope of recognition of a property right which it has been impossible to exercise effectively cannot be considered a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, nor can a conditional claim which lapses as a result of the non-fulfilment of the condition (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII, Polacek and Polackova v. Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 38645/97, § 62, 10 July 2002, Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII and Bugarski and von Vuchetich v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 44142/98, 3 July 2001).
• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 38645/97

  POLACEK and POLACKOVA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 66822/01

  By way of contrast, the hope of recognition of a property right which it has been impossible to exercise effectively cannot be considered a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, nor can a conditional claim which lapses as a result of the non-fulfilment of the condition (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII, Polacek and Polackova v. Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 38645/97, § 62, 10 July 2002, Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII and Bugarski and von Vuchetich v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 44142/98, 3 July 2001).
• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

  GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 66822/01

  By way of contrast, the hope of recognition of a property right which it has been impossible to exercise effectively cannot be considered a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, nor can a conditional claim which lapses as a result of the non-fulfilment of the condition (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII, Polacek and Polackova v. Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 38645/97, § 62, 10 July 2002, Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII and Bugarski and von Vuchetich v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 44142/98, 3 July 2001).
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 48321/99

  SLIVENKO v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 66822/01

  (b) Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not guarantee the right to acquire property (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, § 48, and Slivenko and Others v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 121, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 44580/98

  SIRC v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 66822/01

  Concerning the alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court reiterates the principles which have been established by its case-law under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and which it has also stated in its Kopecký v. Slovakia judgment ([GC], no. 44912/98, ECHR 2004-IX (see also Sirc v. Slovenia, no. 44580/98, 22 June 2006):.
• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 66822/01

  (b) Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not guarantee the right to acquire property (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, § 48, and Slivenko and Others v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 121, ECHR 2002-II).