Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ELLERSIEK v. GERMANY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• OLG Hamm, 01.12.1998 - 15 W 339/98
• LG Bielefeld, 20.03.2000 - 25 (3) T 131/96
• EGMR, 23.06.2005 - 77151/01

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2005 - 77151/01

  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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2005 - 77151/01

  According to the Court's case-law, Article 13 applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52; Voyager Limited v. Turkey (dec.), no. 35045/97, 4 September 2001; Ivison v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39030/97, 16 April 2002).
• EGMR, 29.03.1989 - 11118/84

  BOCK v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2005 - 77151/01

  As the Court has held in the Bock case (Bock v. Germany, judgment of 29 March 1989, Series A no. 150, § 44), an error by a Court leading to a delay in the proceedings brought about by the need for appeal proceedings to correct the error may, in combination with other factors, be taken into account in the determination of the reasonableness of the relevant period pursuant to Article 6 § 1. However, not any error of the lower courts can be taken into account.

 
• EGMR, 28.01.2003 - 34763/02

  BURG et AUTRES contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2005 - 77151/01

  a) With respect to the applicants' complaint under Article 6 § 1 that the Federal Constitutional Court did not give sufficient reasoning for its decision, the Court refers to its consistent case-law to the effect that Article 6 does not require detailed reasons to be given for a decision in which an appellate court, applying a specific legal provision, dismisses an appeal as having no prospects of success (see Burg and Others v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, ECHR 2003-II; Teuschler v. Germany (dec.), no. 47636/99, 4 October 2001, and Vogl v. Germany (dec.), no 65863/01, 5 December 2002).
• EGMR, 04.10.2001 - 47636/99

  TEUSCHLER contre l'ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2005 - 77151/01

  a) With respect to the applicants' complaint under Article 6 § 1 that the Federal Constitutional Court did not give sufficient reasoning for its decision, the Court refers to its consistent case-law to the effect that Article 6 does not require detailed reasons to be given for a decision in which an appellate court, applying a specific legal provision, dismisses an appeal as having no prospects of success (see Burg and Others v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, ECHR 2003-II; Teuschler v. Germany (dec.), no. 47636/99, 4 October 2001, and Vogl v. Germany (dec.), no 65863/01, 5 December 2002).
• EGMR, 05.12.2002 - 65863/01

  VOGL contre l'ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2005 - 77151/01

  a) With respect to the applicants' complaint under Article 6 § 1 that the Federal Constitutional Court did not give sufficient reasoning for its decision, the Court refers to its consistent case-law to the effect that Article 6 does not require detailed reasons to be given for a decision in which an appellate court, applying a specific legal provision, dismisses an appeal as having no prospects of success (see Burg and Others v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, ECHR 2003-II; Teuschler v. Germany (dec.), no. 47636/99, 4 October 2001, and Vogl v. Germany (dec.), no 65863/01, 5 December 2002).

• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 23556/08

  LAMBERTZ v. GERMANY

  Folglich hatte die Beschwerdeführerin keinen "vertretbaren Anspruch" im Sinne von Artikel 13 (siehe beispielsweise S../. Deutschland (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 22367/04, 12. Februar 2008, und E../. Deutschland (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 77151/01, 23. Juni 2005).
• EGMR, 06.09.2011 - 24098/09

  Vereinbarkeit eines drei Jahre dauernden Verfahrens vor dem …

  Folglich hatte der Beschwerdeführer keinen "vertretbaren Anspruch" im Sinne von Artikel 13 (siehe beispielsweise S. ./. Deutschland (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 22367/04, 12. Februar 2008, und E. ./. Deutschland (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 77151/01, 23. Juni 2005).