Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KERN v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the length of the proceedings Inadmissible under Art. 6-1 with regard to the fairness of the proceedings Inadmissible under P1-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses ...

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 11796/85

  WIESINGER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 14206/02

  The Court agrees with the Government that the period to be taken into consideration began on 28 December 1990 with the applicant's appeal against the District Agricultural Authority's decision of 12 December 1990 since it was at that moment that the "dispute" within the meaning of Article 6 arose (see Wiesinger v. Austria, judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 213, p. 20, § 51; and Kolb and Others v. Austria, nos. 35021/97 and 45774/99, § 49, 17 April 2003).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 14206/02

  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, 21.10.2014 - 34911/06

  DIGRYTE KLIBAVICIENE v. LITHUANIA

  The Court reiterates that it is not a court of appeal for the decisions of domestic courts and that, as a general rule, it is for those courts to interpret domestic law and assess the evidence before them (see Kern v. Austria, no. 14206/02, § 61, 24 February 2005, and Wittek v. Germany, no. 37290/97, § 49, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 12628/09

  DZHIDZHEVA-TRENDAFILOVA v. BULGARIA

  Its task under the Convention is to ascertain whether the proceedings as a whole were fair (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, §§ 28-29, ECHR 1999-I, and Kern v. Austria, no. 14206/02, § 61, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 41113/08

  BARTHOFER v. AUSTRIA

  However the Court has already held in similar cases that a detailed examination as to whether the applicants could have made more efficient use of that remedy by using it at other stages of the proceedings, would overstretch the duties incumbent on applicants pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Kern v. Austria, no. 14206/02, § 49, 24 February 2005 and Klug v. Austria, no. 33928/05, § 31, 15 January 2009, both concerning land consolidation proceedings during which the applicants had successfully made use of the request for transfer of jurisdiction once or twice, respectively, and the Government had argued that, in addition, they should have done so at other stages of the proceedings).