Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 34200/06 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,64568) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KESZELI v. SLOVAKIA (No. 2)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96
FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 34200/06
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 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, 14.10.2003 - 66142/01
CIZ v. SLOVAKIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 34200/06
The Court also notes that, in respect of the alleged violation of the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time, it is irrelevant that the ordinary courts did not ultimately determine the merits of the case (see, mutatis mutandis, Cíz v. Slovakia, no. 66142/01, § 61, 14 October 2003). - EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96
ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 34200/06
It therefore finds, contrary to the Government's arguments, that there existed a dispute over "civil rights and obligations" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (see, among others, Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 94, Series A no. 13, and also Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, §§ 117 and 120, ECHR 2005-X). - EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65
RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 34200/06
It therefore finds, contrary to the Government's arguments, that there existed a dispute over "civil rights and obligations" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (see, among others, Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 94, Series A no. 13, and also Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, §§ 117 and 120, ECHR 2005-X).