Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 63859/00   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2007,66580
EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 63859/00 (https://dejure.org/2007,66580)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.09.2007 - 63859/00 (https://dejure.org/2007,66580)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. September 2007 - 63859/00 (https://dejure.org/2007,66580)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,66580) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
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 (7)

  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

    FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 63859/00
    The reasonableness of this period 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, 01.02.2001 - 37895/97

    KURAKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 63859/00
    There is no indication that the first four applicants have challenged the length of the proceedings by way of an administrative complaint (see Kuráková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 37895/97, 1 February 2001), an action in the administrative courts (see Csepyová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 67199/01, 8 April 2003) and a complaint to the Constitutional Court (see Andrásik and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), nos.
  • EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

    GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 63859/00
    Therefore, irrespective of whether the first four applicants exhausted domestic remedies in that respect, they failed to show that they had any possessions falling within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 39794/98, ECHR 2002-VII and, for a summary of the relevant principles, Kopeckŭ v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35, ECHR 2004 IX).
  • EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 57984/00

    ANDRASIK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 63859/00
    57984/00, 60226/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00 and 68563/01, ECHR 2002-IX), lodged in accordance with the applicable requirements (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 IV, p. 1210, § 66).
  • EGMR, 27.10.1987 - 10426/83

    PUDAS c. SUÈDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 63859/00
    The Court finds no reasons to uphold the Government's objection of incompatibility of the complaint ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention (see, among may other authorities, Pudas v. Sweden, judgment of 27 October 1987, Series A no. 125-A, p. 14, § 31).
  • EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 19753/92

    CIRICOSTA AND VIOLA v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 63859/00
    Having regard to all the elements at its disposal, in particular the applicants" procedural conduct, the Court concludes that there is no indication that it was contrary to the requirements laid down in Article 6 § 1 (compare Kandrácová and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 48674/99, 27 January 2004, and Bleyová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 69353/01, 17 October 2006; and also, for example, Katte Klitsche de la Grange v. Italy, judgment of 27 October 1994, Series A no. 293-B, §§ 49-63; Ciricosta and Viola v. Italy, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 337-A, § 28; Sergi v. Italy (dec.), no. 46998/99, 26 September 2000; and Viscomi v. Italy (dec.), no. 52927/99, 8 February 2001).
  • EGMR, 24.02.2004 - 67199/01

    CSEPYOVA v. SLOVAKIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 63859/00
    There is no indication that the first four applicants have challenged the length of the proceedings by way of an administrative complaint (see Kuráková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 37895/97, 1 February 2001), an action in the administrative courts (see Csepyová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 67199/01, 8 April 2003) and a complaint to the Constitutional Court (see Andrásik and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), nos.
  • EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 43527/04

    HORNAK v. SLOVAKIA

    Even though single periods of delay occurred in both sets of proceedings before the Regional Court, that fact does not render the duration of the Regional Court's proceedings at the time of the Constitutional Court's judgments contrary to the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII, Kandrácová and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 48674/99, 27 January 2004, or Hanuliak and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 63859/00, 18 September 2007).
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