Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 28923/06 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,64416) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ZONGOROVA v. SLOVAKIA
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96
FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 28923/06
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, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86
VIDAL c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 28923/06
The domestic courts are best placed to assess the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case and to interpret and apply the rules of substantive and procedural law (see, among other authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 235-B, and Sarak v. Turkey (dec.), no. 21568/05, 31 March 2009). - EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 21568/05
SARAK v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 28923/06
The domestic courts are best placed to assess the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case and to interpret and apply the rules of substantive and procedural law (see, among other authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 235-B, and Sarak v. Turkey (dec.), no. 21568/05, 31 March 2009).
- EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 46371/18
OMDAHL v. NORWAY
As the parties have presented the characteristics of the administration proceedings in this case, they appear to contain a mixture of contentious and non-contentious elements once they have commenced (see, mutatis mutandis, Siegel v. France, no. 36350/97, § 33, ECHR 2000-XII; and Zongorová v. Slovakia, no. 28923/06, 19 January 2010).