Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TOPALLAJ v. ALBANIA

  Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Ratione personae);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an ...

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

  GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 32913/03

  Furthermore, the hope that a long-extinguished property right may be revived cannot be regarded as a "possession", nor can a conditional claim which has lapsed as a result of a failure to fulfil the condition (see Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII).
• EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 64972/01

  ZIETAL c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 32913/03

  Consequently, the applicant's intervention as a third party must be taken to attract the application of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in its "civil" limb (see, mutatis mutandis, Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 66, ECHR 2004-I) and he can thus claim to be a "victim" of a breach of that provision for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention (see also Zietal v. Poland, no. 64972/01, §§ 57-59, 12 May 2009).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 32913/03

  According to the Court's case-law, Article 13 applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see, amongst many other authorities, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131; more recently, Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 208, ECHR 2012, and Othymia Investments BV v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 75292/10, § 34, 16 June 2015).

 
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 32913/03

  The Court would recall that the "reasonableness" of the length of proceedings is to 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 of the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 10508/02

  GJONBOCARI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 32913/03

  Moreover, referring to its previous judgments in the case of Gjonbocari and Others v. Albania (no. 10508/02, §§ 73-82, 23 October 2007) and Marini v. Albania (no. 3738/02, §§ 147-158, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts)), the Court found that there was no effective remedy in Albania in respect of the length of pending or terminated proceedings at the material time.
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 32913/03

  According to the Court's case-law, Article 6 does not normally apply to proceedings concerning a failed request to reopen a case which has been terminated by a final decision (see, most recently, Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 44, ECHR 2015 and the references cited there).
• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 75292/10

  OTHYMIA INVESTMENTS BV v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 32913/03

  According to the Court's case-law, Article 13 applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see, amongst many other authorities, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131; more recently, Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 208, ECHR 2012, and Othymia Investments BV v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 75292/10, § 34, 16 June 2015).

• EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 22716/12

  ANDRZEJ RUCI?ƒSKI v. POLAND

  The Court's jurisdiction to verify that domestic law has been correctly interpreted and applied is limited, and it is not its function to take the place of the national courts; rather, its role is to ensure that the decisions of those courts are not flawed by arbitrariness or otherwise manifestly unreasonable (see Topallaj v. Albania, no. 32913/03, § 89, 21 April 2016, and Weitz v. Poland (dec.), no. 37727/05, 23 June 2009).
• EGMR, 28.07.2020 - 53028/14

  MONICA MACOVEI v. ROMANIA

  This principle guides the Court's case-law on Article 6. According to the established case-law, persons whose civil rights can be directly affected by the outcome of the proceedings have the right to be heard in the proceedings before the competent domestic court (see, in particular, the following judgments: Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, nos. 6878/75 and 7238/75, 23 June 1981, § 47, Series A no. 43; Deumeland v. Germany, no. 9384/81, 29 May 1986, § 77, Series A no. 100; Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain, no. 12952/87, 23 June 1993, § 63, Series A no. 262; Kakamoukas and Others v. Greece [GC], no. 38311/02, § 32, 15 February 2008; López Guió v. Slovakia, no. 10280/12, § 102-106, 3 June 2014; Topallaj v. Albania, no. 32913/03, § 68, 21 April 2016; Ezgeta v. Croatia, no. 40562/12, § 33, 7 September 2017; Bursa Barosu Baskanligi and Others v. Turkey, no. 25680/05, § 128, 19 June 2018; and Sine Tsaggarakis A.E.E. v. Greece, no. 17257/13, § 40, 23 May 2019).
• EGMR, 20.07.2023 - 11254/11

  HAMITAJ v. ALBANIA

  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 Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Gazsó v. Hungary, no. 48322/12, § 15, 16 July 2015; and Topallaj v. Albania, no. 32913/03, § 75, 21 April 2016).

 
• EGMR, 06.07.2023 - 72348/11

  MULLA v. ALBANIA

  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 Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Gazsó v. Hungary, no. 48322/12, § 15, 16 July 2015; and Topallaj v. Albania, no. 32913/03, § 75, 21 April 2016).
• EGMR, 22.06.2023 - 61445/12

  ZEQO AND SEAT SH.P.K. v. ALBANIA

  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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Gazsó v. Hungary, no. 48322/12, § 15, 16 July 2015; and Topallaj v. Albania, no. 32913/03, § 75, 21 April 2016).
• EGMR, 17.05.2023 - 40730/11

  KOTE v. ALBANIA

  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 Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Gazsó v. Hungary, no. 48322/12, § 15, 16 July 2015; and Topallaj v. Albania, no. 32913/03, § 75, 21 April 2016).
• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 23126/16

  STAVILA v. ROMANIA

  If there is no adequate remedy against a particular act which is alleged to be in breach of the Convention, the date when that act takes place is taken to be "final" for the purposes of the six-month rule (see, for example, Topallaj v. Albania, no. 32913/03, § 103, 21 April 2016, with further references).
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 43768/17

  HAN AARTS B.V. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  On the basis of an elaborate reasoning referring to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and with reference to the Court's established case-law under this provision (Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, 26 June 1986, Series A no. 101; Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159; Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192; Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37683/97, ECHR 2000-I; Wendenburg and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 71630/01, ECHR 2003-II (extracts); Malik v. the United Kingdom, no. 23780/08, 13 March 2012; Vékony v. Hungary, no. 65681/13, 13 January 2015; and Topallaj v. Albania, no. 32913/03, 21 April 2016), the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the case did not concern a de facto deprivation of possessions but should rather be regarded as a form of control over the use of property, since the fur farmers remained in possession of their assets and could continue to operate in a profitable manner during the transitional period.
• EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 27329/21

  TENDERA v. GERMANY

  Alleged violation of K.'s rights under Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the Convention 11. In order to claim standing under Article 34 of the Convention, a person must be directly affected by the impugned measure or proceedings (see Topallaj v. Albania, no. 32913/03, § 65, 21 April 2016).