Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VELJKOV v. SERBIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 25959/06

  TOMIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 23087/07

  Other relevant provisions are set out in the cases of V.A.M. v. Serbia (no. 39177/05, §§ 56-59 and 65-75, 13 March 2007), and Tomic v. Serbia (no. 25959/06, §§ 55-62 and 68-71, 26 June 2007).

  In cases concerning the enforcement of decisions in the sphere of family law, the Court has repeatedly found that what is decisive is whether the national authorities have taken all necessary steps to facilitate the execution, in so far as can reasonably be demanded in the special circumstances of each case (see, among other authorities, Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 58, Series A no. 299-A; Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, §§ 127-128, ECHR 2000-VIII; Glaser v. the United Kingdom, no. 32346/96, § 66, 19 September 2000; Hansen v. Turkey, no. 36141/97, §§ 97-99, 23 September 2003; Kallo v. Hungary (dec.), no. 70558/01, 14 October 2003; Tomic v. Serbia, no. 25959/06, §§ 100-102, 26 June 2007; Felbab v. Serbia, no. 14011/07, § 67, 14 April 2009; and Krivosej v. Serbia, no. 42559/08, § 52, 13 April 2010).

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 23087/07

  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, 14.04.2009 - 14011/07

  FELBAB v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 23087/07

  In cases concerning the enforcement of decisions in the sphere of family law, the Court has repeatedly found that what is decisive is whether the national authorities have taken all necessary steps to facilitate the execution, in so far as can reasonably be demanded in the special circumstances of each case (see, among other authorities, Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 58, Series A no. 299-A; Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, §§ 127-128, ECHR 2000-VIII; Glaser v. the United Kingdom, no. 32346/96, § 66, 19 September 2000; Hansen v. Turkey, no. 36141/97, §§ 97-99, 23 September 2003; Kallo v. Hungary (dec.), no. 70558/01, 14 October 2003; Tomic v. Serbia, no. 25959/06, §§ 100-102, 26 June 2007; Felbab v. Serbia, no. 14011/07, § 67, 14 April 2009; and Krivosej v. Serbia, no. 42559/08, § 52, 13 April 2010).

 
• EGMR, 13.04.2010 - 42559/08

  KRIVOSEJ v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 23087/07

  In cases concerning the enforcement of decisions in the sphere of family law, the Court has repeatedly found that what is decisive is whether the national authorities have taken all necessary steps to facilitate the execution, in so far as can reasonably be demanded in the special circumstances of each case (see, among other authorities, Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 58, Series A no. 299-A; Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, §§ 127-128, ECHR 2000-VIII; Glaser v. the United Kingdom, no. 32346/96, § 66, 19 September 2000; Hansen v. Turkey, no. 36141/97, §§ 97-99, 23 September 2003; Kallo v. Hungary (dec.), no. 70558/01, 14 October 2003; Tomic v. Serbia, no. 25959/06, §§ 100-102, 26 June 2007; Felbab v. Serbia, no. 14011/07, § 67, 14 April 2009; and Krivosej v. Serbia, no. 42559/08, § 52, 13 April 2010).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 23087/07

  In cases concerning the enforcement of decisions in the sphere of family law, the Court has repeatedly found that what is decisive is whether the national authorities have taken all necessary steps to facilitate the execution, in so far as can reasonably be demanded in the special circumstances of each case (see, among other authorities, Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 58, Series A no. 299-A; Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, §§ 127-128, ECHR 2000-VIII; Glaser v. the United Kingdom, no. 32346/96, § 66, 19 September 2000; Hansen v. Turkey, no. 36141/97, §§ 97-99, 23 September 2003; Kallo v. Hungary (dec.), no. 70558/01, 14 October 2003; Tomic v. Serbia, no. 25959/06, §§ 100-102, 26 June 2007; Felbab v. Serbia, no. 14011/07, § 67, 14 April 2009; and Krivosej v. Serbia, no. 42559/08, § 52, 13 April 2010).
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 23087/07

  In both contexts, regard must be had to the fair balance to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole; in both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation (see Keegan v. Ireland, judgment of 26 May 1994, § 49, Series A no. 290).