Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 34784/02 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,63058) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
VASILCHENKO v. RUSSIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 Buchst. b MRK
Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-b - No significant disadvantage) No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) ...
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 08.12.1999 - 28541/95
PELLEGRIN v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 34784/02
The Government argued that Article 6 did not apply to the present case referring to the Court's previous findings in Pellegrin v. France ([GC], no. 28541/95, §§ 65-67, ECHR 1999-VIII). - EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96
FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 34784/02
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, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00
VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 34784/02
However, in its later judgment Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland ([GC], no. 63235/00, § 62, ECHR 2007-IV) the Grand Chamber developed the existing case-law applying new criteria of applicability of Article 6 to such disputes.
- EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 9791/05
VASYANOVICH v. RUSSIA
If a significant disadvantage is absent, so is the arguable claim (see Vasilchenko v. Russia, no. 34784/02, § 54, 23 September 2010). - EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 3634/04
GAVRIS AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
Finally, in application no. 56557/10, concerning the failure to enforce the award of 584 Romanian lei (ROL) representing court fees, considering the rather minor amount of the award (roughly equal to 140 euros (EUR)), the Court finds that the applicant did not suffer a significant disadvantage as a result of the authorities" failure to enforce the impugned award (see Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010, and Vasilchenko v. Russia, no. 34784/02, §§ 49-50, 23 September 2010).