Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 54841/08   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2010,59940
EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 54841/08 (https://dejure.org/2010,59940)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.05.2010 - 54841/08 (https://dejure.org/2010,59940)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. Mai 2010 - 54841/08 (https://dejure.org/2010,59940)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,59940) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

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

  • EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 10391/06

    NEVALA v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 54841/08
    In deciding whether or not it should strike the length of proceedings complaint out of its list, the Court will examine carefully the terms of the declaration made by the Government in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular its judgments and decisions in cases such as Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC] (no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005); Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden ((striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006); Van Houten v. the Netherlands ((striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX); Kalanyos and Others v. Romania (no. 57884/00, § 25, 26 April 2007); Nevala v. Finland, ((partial striking out), no. 10391/06, 20 January 2009); and Landgren v. Finland ((partial striking out), no. 11459/07, 17 November 2009).
  • EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 22508/02

    F AND M v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 54841/08
    Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases against Finland (see, for example, Riihikallio and Others v. Finland, no. 25072/02, §§ 22-27, 31 May 2007; F. and M. v. Finland, no. 22508/02, §§ 48-53, 17 July 2007 and Ekholm v. Finland, no. 68050/01, §§ 62-66, 24 July 2007).
  • EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 11459/07

    LANDGREN v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 54841/08
    In deciding whether or not it should strike the length of proceedings complaint out of its list, the Court will examine carefully the terms of the declaration made by the Government in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular its judgments and decisions in cases such as Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC] (no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005); Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden ((striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006); Van Houten v. the Netherlands ((striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX); Kalanyos and Others v. Romania (no. 57884/00, § 25, 26 April 2007); Nevala v. Finland, ((partial striking out), no. 10391/06, 20 January 2009); and Landgren v. Finland ((partial striking out), no. 11459/07, 17 November 2009).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

    FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 54841/08
    The Court has established in a number of cases its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII and Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-).
  • EGMR, 24.07.2007 - 68050/01

    EKHOLM v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 54841/08
    Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases against Finland (see, for example, Riihikallio and Others v. Finland, no. 25072/02, §§ 22-27, 31 May 2007; F. and M. v. Finland, no. 22508/02, §§ 48-53, 17 July 2007 and Ekholm v. Finland, no. 68050/01, §§ 62-66, 24 July 2007).
  • EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 66394/09

    KOIO v. FINLAND

    The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Finland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-....; Pohjarakennus Oy Korpela v. Finland (dec.) no. 54841/08, 18 May 2009; and Lindholm and Venäläinen v. Finland (dec.) no. 5795/08, 1 December 2009).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht