Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OTTO v. AUSTRIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 12702/08

  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, 04.01.2008 - 34863/04

  W. L. gegen Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 12702/08

  The Court observes that the present case concerned the applicant's request for a survivor's pension and therefore, as a matter of principle, called for a swift termination of the proceedings (see Lyszczna v. Germany (dec.), no. 34863/04, 4 January 2008).

• EGMR, 28.01.2010 - 45369/07

  RAMBAUSKE v. AUSTRIA

  In reply to the Government's argument relating to the Administrative Court's excessive workload which was due to structural reasons, the Court reiterates its well-established case-law that it is for the Contracting States to organise their judicial systems in such a way that their courts are able to guarantee everyone the right to obtain a final decision on disputes concerning civil rights and obligations within a reasonable time (see, for instance, Otto v. Austria, no. 12702/08, § 24, 22 October 2009, and Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 24, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 28.02.2017 - 49664/12

  HAMBERGER v. AUSTRIA

  The period to be taken into consideration began on 26 September 2003, when the applicant lodged his request that his employment relationship with the Traun Municipality be declared as still valid (see paragraph 8 above; see Otto v. Austria, no. 12702/08, § 18, 22 October 2009), and ended on 9 February 2012, when the Administrative Court's final decision was served on the applicant's counsel (see paragraph 22 above).
• EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 5339/07

  VON PEZOLD v. AUSTRIA

  Even though the Court appreciates the efforts made by the Administrative Court to deal with its case-load expeditiously, it would reiterate that it is for Contracting States to organise their legal systems in such a way that their courts can guarantee the right of everyone to obtain a final decision on disputes within a reasonable time (see, for instance, Almesberger v. Austria, no. 13471/06, § 27, 10 December 2009, and Otto v. Austria, no. 12702/08, § 24, 22 October 2009).
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 43463/09

  HACKEL v. AUSTRIA

  Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see for example Otto v. Austria, no. 12702/08, 22 October 2009, and Strobel v. Austria, no. 25929/05, 4 June 2009), the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.