Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PANAYIOTOU v. CYPRUS

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 20009/06
• EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 20009/06
• EGMR - 20009/06

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

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 20009/06

  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 applicant's conduct and the conduct of the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 20009/06

  The Court observes that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention imposes on the Contracting States the duty to organise their judicial system in such a way that their courts can meet each of its requirements (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 45, ECHR 2000-VII, and Massa v. Italy, 24 August 1993, § 31, Series A no. 265-B).
• EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 31243/06

  MIKA v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 20009/06

  The Court's task under the Convention is not to give a ruling on whether the witness statements were properly admitted as evidence, but to ascertain whether the proceedings as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (García Ruiz v. Spain, cited above; see also Mika v. Sweden (dec.), no. 31243/06, 27 January 2009).

 
• EGMR, 24.08.1993 - 14399/88

  MASSA v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 20009/06

  The Court observes that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention imposes on the Contracting States the duty to organise their judicial system in such a way that their courts can meet each of its requirements (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 45, ECHR 2000-VII, and Massa v. Italy, 24 August 1993, § 31, Series A no. 265-B).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 20009/06

  The Court finds that the period to be taken into consideration started on 23 July 2000, the day of the applicant's arrest (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 19, Series A no. 7) and ended on 9 November 2005 when the Supreme Court gave its judgment on appeal.
• EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

  VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 20009/06

  As regards the applicant's third complaint concerning the examination of his appeal by the Supreme Court and that court's judgment, the Court reiterates that although Article 6 § 1 obliges courts to give reasons for their decisions, it cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument (see, for example, García Ruiz v. Spain, cited above, § 26, and Klemeco Nord AB v. Sweden, no. 73841/01, § 39, 19 December 2006); a party does not have an absolute right to require reasons to be given for rejecting each of his arguments, nor is the Court called upon to examine whether arguments are adequately met (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, § 61, Series A no. 288).