Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OMDAHL v. NORWAY

  No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  OMDAHL v. NORWAY

  Art. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 15.10.1999 - 26614/95

  HUMEN c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 46371/18

  In its introductory remarks it further stated, referring to Humen v. Poland ([GC], no. 26614/95, § 66, 15 October 1999), that the State was only responsible for circumstances that could be attributed to the authorities" handling of the case.

  Moreover, only delays attributable to the State may justify a finding of failure to comply with the "reasonable time" requirement (see, among other authorities, Humen v. Poland [GC], no. 26614/95, § 66, 15 October 1999, and Proszak v. Poland, 16 December 1997, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII).

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 46371/18

  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, and Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 19, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97

  COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 46371/18

  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, and Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 19, ECHR 2000-IV).

 
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 28923/06

  ZONGOROVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 46371/18

  As the parties have presented the characteristics of the administration proceedings in this case, they appear to contain a mixture of contentious and non-contentious elements once they have commenced (see, mutatis mutandis, Siegel v. France, no. 36350/97, § 33, ECHR 2000-XII; and Zongorová v. Slovakia, no. 28923/06, 19 January 2010).
• EGMR, 28.06.1990 - 11761/85

  Obermeier ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 46371/18

  The court referred to Nielsen v. Denmark (no. 44034/07, §§ 35-51, 2 July 2009); Christensen v. Denmark (no. 247/07, §§ 81-98, 22 January 2009); Grässer v. Germany (no. 66491/01, § 57, 5 October 2006); Berlin v. Luxembourg (no. 44978/98, 15 July 2003); and Obermeier v. Austria (28 June 1990, § 72, Series A no. 179).
• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 36350/97

  SIEGEL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 46371/18

  As the parties have presented the characteristics of the administration proceedings in this case, they appear to contain a mixture of contentious and non-contentious elements once they have commenced (see, mutatis mutandis, Siegel v. France, no. 36350/97, § 33, ECHR 2000-XII; and Zongorová v. Slovakia, no. 28923/06, 19 January 2010).

• EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 22493/12

  KOKALARI v. ALBANIA

  The proceedings concerned the actual existence and scope of the right, namely as regards proprietary claims over the same plots of land asserted by several heirs, including the applicants (compare Omdahl v. Norway, no. 46371/18, § 47, 22 April 2021).