Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 2100/10

The Court reiterates that Article 35 § 1 of the Convention requires that the complaints brought before the Court should first have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law, but that no recourse need be had to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see, for example, Kucheruk v. Ukraine, no. 2570/04, § 108, 6 September 2007).

Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 2100/10

It has also held that "confiscation proceedings are analogous to the determination by a court of the amount of a fine or the length of a period of imprisonment to be imposed on a properly convicted offender" and that "in common with such sentencing procedures, the setting and enforcement of a confiscation order does not involve the bringing of any new criminal charge against the convicted person" (see Phillips, cited above, §§ 34-35; Welch v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 9 February 1995, Series A no. 307-A, p. 13, §§ 27-28; and Crowther, cited above, § 24-25).

Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 2100/10

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 applicants 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).

Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 2100/10

It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see amongst other authorities Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 68, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V; Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII; and Vuckovic and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 17153/11 and 29 other cases, §§ 69-77, 25 March 2014).

Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 2100/10

Although such a discharge may have caused problems for the applicants, it is clear that Article 6 does not confer a right on applicants to an unlimited veto where their representation is publicly funded (see, for example, Croissant v. Germany, 25 September 1992, Series A no. 237-B).