Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 42236/05 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,55612) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
HARTMAN v. SLOVENIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
Hartman v. Slovenia
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (8)
- EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 27569/02
FRANZ FISCHER contre l'AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 42236/05
The Court notes that, in accordance with its established case-law, Article 6 § 1 does not apply to proceedings for reopening a trial, given that someone who applies for his case to be reopened and whose sentence has become final, is not "someone charged with a criminal offence" within the meaning of the said Article (Fischer v. Austria (dec.), no. 27569/02, 6 May 2003). - EGMR, 30.03.2006 - 75628/01
HRUSTELJ v. SLOVENIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 42236/05
Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having regard to its case-law on the subject (see Subinski v. Slovenia, no. 19611/04, §§ 72-74, 18 January 2007; Hrustelj v. Slovenia, no. 75628/01, §§ 18-20, 30 March 2006 and Gorenjak v. Slovenia, no. 77819/01, 30 March 2006, §§ 17-19) the Court considers that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement. - EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 19611/04
SUBINSKI v. SLOVENIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 42236/05
Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having regard to its case-law on the subject (see Subinski v. Slovenia, no. 19611/04, §§ 72-74, 18 January 2007; Hrustelj v. Slovenia, no. 75628/01, §§ 18-20, 30 March 2006 and Gorenjak v. Slovenia, no. 77819/01, 30 March 2006, §§ 17-19) the Court considers that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.
- EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 20965/03
RIBIC v. SLOVENIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 42236/05
For relevant domestic law see judgment Ribic v. Slovenia (no. 20965/03, 19 October 2010, § 19). - EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 32600/05
BARISIC v. SLOVENIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 42236/05
In my separate opinion in Barisic v. Slovenia (32600/05) I have set out the reasons why I cannot accept the Court's current "broad brush" approach to "length of proceedings" claims. - EKMR, 05.03.1962 - 1237/61
X. contre l'AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 42236/05
The same principle applies to the proceedings following the request for an extraordinary mitigation of sentence, considering that in accordance with the case-law Article 6 § 1 does not apply to proceedings for review of a sentence after the decision has become res judicata (X v. Austria, no. 1237/61, 5 March 1962). - EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 42236/05
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 for a case to be heard within a reasonable time (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI). - EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96
FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 42236/05
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).