Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 18.04.2006 - 12605/02 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,69101) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PATTA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
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 Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 14.09.2004 - 12605/02
- EGMR, 18.04.2006 - 12605/02
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23536/94
Strafrechtliche Verfolgung auf Grund der Veröffentlichung eines Buches mit …
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2006 - 12605/02
With regard to the applicant's Convention costs, the Court reiterates that it does not consider itself bound by domestic scales and practices, although it may derive some assistance from them (see, among many other authorities, Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316, p. 83, § 77, and Baskaya and Okçuoglu v. Turkey, nos. 23536/94 and 24408/94, § 98, ECHR 1999-IV). - EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96
FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2006 - 12605/02
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 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, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90
YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2006 - 12605/02
Turning to the Government's argument that the applicant contributed to the delay in the proceedings by challenging the decisions on the merits, the Court reiterates that the applicant cannot be blamed for taking full advantage of the resources afforded by national law in the defence of his interests (see, mutatis mutandis, YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 66).