Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ROBERT LESJAK v. SLOVENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 33946/03

  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, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 33946/03

  The same is necessarily true of the concept of "effective" remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

  CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 33946/03

  It is true that the Court has been prepared to allow for a certain level of flexibility in applying the requirements that Governments need to fulfil when relying on the non-exhaustion rule in respect of the domestic remedies adopted with a view to providing redress for undue delays in domestic proceedings (see Scordino, cited above, § 189-90; Žunic, cited above, § 37; Korenjak, cited above, § 73; Charzynski v. Poland no. 15212/03 (dec.), §§ 40-41, ECHR 2005-V; and Slavicek v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20862/02, ECHR 2002-VII).
• EGMR, 04.07.2002 - 20862/02

  SLAVICEK contre la CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 33946/03

  It is true that the Court has been prepared to allow for a certain level of flexibility in applying the requirements that Governments need to fulfil when relying on the non-exhaustion rule in respect of the domestic remedies adopted with a view to providing redress for undue delays in domestic proceedings (see Scordino, cited above, § 189-90; Žunic, cited above, § 37; Korenjak, cited above, § 73; Charzynski v. Poland no. 15212/03 (dec.), §§ 40-41, ECHR 2005-V; and Slavicek v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20862/02, ECHR 2002-VII).
• EGMR, 15.03.2005 - 60227/00

  BAKO v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 33946/03

  Regardless of the effect the above acceleratory remedies would have on the proceedings before the Supreme Court, had the applicant used them, the Court does not consider that they could have had any significant effect on the length of the proceedings as a whole (see Holzinger v. Austria (no. 1), no. 23459/94, § 22, ECHR 2001-I, and Bako v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 60227/00, 15 March 2005).

• EGMR, 26.09.2017 - 33868/08

  KOLAR v. SLOVENIA

  The relevant domestic law is summarised in Robert Lesjak v. Slovenia (no. 33946/03, §§ 18-25, 21 July 2009) and Tomazic v. Slovenia (no. 38350/02, § 23, 13 December 2007).

  In view of its findings in Robert Lesjak v. Slovenia (no. 33946/03, §§ 40-53, 21 July 2009) and Tomazic (cited above, §§ 41-45), and having regard to its conclusion that the procedure provided in section 25 of the amended 2006 Act did not apply to the applicant's case (see paragraphs 19-20 above), the Court finds that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy whereby he could have obtained a ruling upholding his right to have his case heard within a reasonable time.

• EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 52886/08

  SVARA v. SLOVENIA

  For relevant domestic law, see the judgment Lesjak v. Slovenia (no. 33946/03, 21 July 2009) and Tomazic v. Slovenia (no. 38350/02, 13 December 2007).

  In view of its findings in the cases Tomazic v. Slovenia (no. 38350/02, 13 December 2007, §§ 41-45) and Lesjak v. Slovenia (no. 33946/03, 21 July 2009), the Court finds that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of a remedy under domestic law whereby the applicants could have obtained a ruling upholding their right to have their case heard within a reasonable time, as set forth in Article 6 § 1.

• EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 33333/11

  SOTOSEK v. SLOVENIA

  For relevant domestic law, see the judgments Lesjak v. Slovenia (no. 33946/03, 21 July 2009) and Tomazic v. Slovenia (no. 38350/02, 13 December 2007).

  In view of its findings in the cases Tomazic v. Slovenia (no. 38350/02, 13 December 2007, §§ 41-45) and Lesjak v. Slovenia (no. 33946/03, 21 July 2009), the Court finds that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of a remedy under domestic law whereby the applicant could have obtained a ruling upholding their right to have their case heard within a reasonable time, as set forth in Article 6 § 1.

 
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48059/06

  DIMITROV AND HAMANOV v. BULGARIA

  Fourthly, such claims can be brought only after the criminal proceedings have ended and not while they are still pending (see Robert Lesjak v. Slovenia, no. 33946/03, §§ 52-53, 21 July 2009).
• EGMR, 10.10.2023 - 31634/18

  RIMSEVICS v. LATVIA

  Where the respondent State has introduced a new remedy, the Court has ascertained whether that remedy is effective (see, for example, Robert Lesjak v. Slovenia, no. 33946/03, §§ 34-55, 21 July 2009; Demopoulos and Others, cited above, § 87; Preda and Others v. Romania, nos. 9584/02 and 7 others, §§ 118-33, 29 April 2014; and Xynos v. Greece, no. 30226/09, §§ 37 and 40-51, 9 October 2014).
• EGMR, 28.04.2022 - 15566/13

  VERRASCINA ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Dans son arrêt no 30 de 2014, 1a Cour constitutionnelle rejeta la question de constitutionnalité du nouvel article 4. Rappelant les arrêts Cocchiarella c. Italie ([GC], no 64886/01, CEDH 2006-V) et Robert Lesjak c. Slovénie (no 33946/03, 21 juillet 2009), elle jugea néanmoins que le fait de différer l'introduction de la demande de réparation à la fin de la procédure dans laquelle le retard s'est produit, avait un impact sur l'effectivité du recours en question.
• EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 10761/09

  JATAIRWAYS, A.D. BEOGRAD v. SLOVENIA

  For relevant domestic law, see the judgments Robert Lesjak v. Slovenia (no. 33946/03, 21 July 2009); Tomazic v. Slovenia (no. 38350/02, 13 December 2007) and Lukenda v. Slovenia (no. 23032/02, ECHR 2005-X).
• EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 17596/06

  ZABOVNIK v. SLOVENIA

  The Court notes that unlike in the case of Lesjak Robert v. Slovenia (no. 33946/03, 21 October 2009) the proceedings in the present case were finally resolved on 2 February 2009.
• EGMR, 27.04.2017 - 32143/10

  DI SANTE c. ITALIE

  Par conséquent, lorsqu'il estime que la durée de la procédure a été excessive, un requérant doit avoir la possibilité de demander réparation devant les juridictions internes à tout moment de la procédure principale et dans un délai de six mois après la date de la décision interne définitive (voir, mutatis mutandis, Robert Lesjak c. Slovénie, no 33946/03, §§ 52, 53 et 55, 21 juillet 2009).
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 10894/11

  KLARIC v. SLOVENIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Slovenia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time and the ineffectiveness of remedies in this connection (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/01, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, § 74, ECHR 2005-X; Tomazic v. Slovenia, no. 38350/02, § 54, 13 December 2007; and Robert Lesjak v. Slovenia, no. 33946/03, § 59, 21 July 2009).
• EGMR, 04.02.2014 - 18586/08

  KOLAR v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 15.12.2011 - 25634/05

  BEGUS v. SLOVENIA