Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KANGASLUOMA v. FINLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 48339/99
• EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 48339/99
• EGMR, 06.06.2012 - 48339/99

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 48339/99

  The scope of the Contracting States" obligations under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint; however, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77

  VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 48339/99

  Although no single remedy may itself entirely satisfy the requirements of Article 13, the aggregate of remedies provided for under domestic law may do so (see e.g. the X. v United Kingdom judgment of 5 November 1981, Series A no. 46, p. 26, § 60; the van Droogenbroeck v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, p. 32, § 56; and the Leander v. Sweden judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, §§ 77 and 81-82).
• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  LEANDER c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 48339/99

  Although no single remedy may itself entirely satisfy the requirements of Article 13, the aggregate of remedies provided for under domestic law may do so (see e.g. the X. v United Kingdom judgment of 5 November 1981, Series A no. 46, p. 26, § 60; the van Droogenbroeck v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, p. 32, § 56; and the Leander v. Sweden judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, §§ 77 and 81-82).
• EGMR, 05.11.1981 - 7215/75

  X v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 48339/99

  Although no single remedy may itself entirely satisfy the requirements of Article 13, the aggregate of remedies provided for under domestic law may do so (see e.g. the X. v United Kingdom judgment of 5 November 1981, Series A no. 46, p. 26, § 60; the van Droogenbroeck v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, p. 32, § 56; and the Leander v. Sweden judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, §§ 77 and 81-82).

• EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 28631/05

  MANNINEN v. FINLAND

  The scope of the Contracting States" obligations under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint; however, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI, Kangasluoma v. Finland, no. 48339/99, § 46, 20 January 2004, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 74-79, ECHR 2006-...).

  Consequently, since the Government have not shown that any form of relief - either preventive or compensatory - was available to the applicant, there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in that the applicant had no domestic remedy whereby he could enforce his right to a hearing within a reasonable time as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Kangasluoma v. Finland, no. 48339/99, §§ 48-49, 20 January 2004).

• EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 36044/09

  HORVATIC v. CROATIA

  The Court must, however, determine whether the proceedings considered as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see G.B. v. France, no. 44069/98, § 59, ECHR 2001-X; Kangasluoma v. Finland (dec.), no. 48339/99, 21 May 2002; and Laska and Lika v. Albania, nos.
• EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 10391/06

  NEVALA v. FINLAND

  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, Kangasluoma v. Finland, no. 48339/99, 20 January 2004 and Lehtonen v. Finland, no. 11704/03, 13 June 2006).

 
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 41585/98

  LEHTINEN v. FINLAND (No. 2)

  The scope of the Contracting States" obligations under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint; however, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI, Kangasluoma v. Finland, no. 48339/99, § 46, 20 January 2004, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 74-79, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 45981/08

  SEPPALA v. FINLAND

  Consequently, as the Government have not shown that any form of relief - either preventive or compensatory - was available for the applicant, the Government's argument of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must be rejected (see, mutatis mutandis, Kangasluoma v. Finland, no. 48339/99, §§ 48-49, 20 January 2004).
• EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 32681/06

  MANNER v. FINLAND

  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, Kangasluoma v. Finland, no. 48339/99, 20 January 2004 and Lehtonen v. Finland, no. 11704/03, 13 June 2006).
• EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 302/05

  NORKUNAS v. LITHUANIA

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present application (see Mattoccia v. Italy, no. 23969/94, §§ 75-81, ECHR 2000-IX, and Kangasluoma v. Finland, no. 48339/99, §§ 29-36, 20 January 2004).