Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZAVODNIK v. SLOVENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) Pecuniary damage - ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 53723/13
• EGMR, 05.04.2017 - 53723/13

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 53723/13

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 75402/01

  BAUER v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 53723/13

  The Court further reiterates that special diligence is necessary in employment disputes (see Ruotolo v. Italy, 27 February 1992, § 17, Series A no. 230-D, and Bauer v. Slovenia, no. 75402/01, § 19, 9 March 2006).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 53723/13

  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, 15.10.2002 - 55782/00

  CAÑETE DE GOÑII c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 53723/13

  In the circumstances of the present case, the Court is unable to come to a conclusion that the applicant had a fair opportunity to have knowledge of the hearing on the distribution of the estate and that his failure to take part in the proceedings was due to a lack of diligence on his part (see, a contrario, Cañete de Goñi v. Spain, no. 55782/00, § 39, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

  PADOVANI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 53723/13

  Lastly, the Court reiterates that its task is not to review the relevant law and practice in abstracto, but to determine whether the manner in which they were applied to or affected the applicant gave rise to a violation of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Padovani v. Italy, 26 February 1993, § 24, Series A no. 257-B).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12129/86

  HENNINGS v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 53723/13

  Moreover, the right of access to a court entails the entitlement to receive adequate notification of judicial decisions, particularly in cases where an appeal might be sought within a specified time-limit (see, inter alia, Hennings v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 26, Series A no. 251-A; Bogonos (dec.), cited above; Sukhorubchenko v. Russia, no. 69315/01, §§ 50-54, 10 February 2005; Mikulová v. Slovakia, no. 64001/00, §§ 52-58, 6 December 2005; and Weber (dec.), cited above).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 53723/13

  They stressed that laying down procedural rules falls within the jurisdiction of the national authorities, and reminded the Court that its task was limited to assessing whether the regulation at stake was reasonable, whether it had a legitimate aim and whether there was a reasonable proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see, in particular, Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 57, Series A no. 93).
• EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12952/87

  RUIZ-MATEOS c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 53723/13

  However, the general concept of a fair trial, encompassing the fundamental principle that proceedings should be adversarial (see Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain, 23 June 1993, § 63, Series A no. 262) requires that all the parties to civil proceedings should have the opportunity to have knowledge of and to comment on the observations filed or evidence adduced by the other party with a view to influencing the court's decision (see Lobo Machado v. Portugal, 20 February 1996, § 31, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-I).
• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 53723/13

  Furthermore, a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Ashingdane, cited above, § 57; Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 65, Series A no. 294-B; and Cordova v. Italy (no. 1), no. 40877/98, § 54, ECHR 2003-I).
• EGMR, 23.01.2003 - 51307/99

  GEFFRE contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 53723/13

  The Court must ascertain whether on the facts of the case a fair balance was struck between, on one hand, the interests of the effective administration of justice and, on the other hand, those of the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Geffre v. France (dec.), no 51307/99, CEDH 2003-I).