Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EKHOLM v. FINLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 07.02.2006 - 68050/01
• EGMR, 24.07.2007 - 68050/01
• EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 68050/01

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2007 - 68050/01

  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, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2007 - 68050/01

  As to the alleged nuisance, the Government took the view that there could be no interference by a public authority with the applicants" peaceful enjoyment of their possessions unless the administrative authorities were considered to have failed to comply with the relevant judicial decisions (see, mutatis mutandis, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, § 60).
• EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 12750/87

  PHILIS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2007 - 68050/01

  The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal; in this way it embodies the "right to a court", of which the right of access, that is the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters, constitutes one aspect (see Philis v. Greece, judgment of 27 August 1991, Series A no. 209, p. 20, § 59).
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2007 - 68050/01

  It would be inconceivable that Article 6 § 1 should describe in detail procedural guarantees afforded to litigants - proceedings that are fair, public and expeditious - without protecting the implementation of judicial decisions; to construe Article 6 as being concerned exclusively with access to a court and the conduct of proceedings would be likely to lead to situations incompatible with the principle of the rule of law which the Contracting States undertook to respect when they ratified the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, pp. 16-18, §§ 34-36).

• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 7779/04

  K.K. v. FINLAND

  Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases against Finland (see, for example, Riihikallio and Others v. Finland, no. 25072/02, §§ 22-27, 31 May 2007; F. and M. v. Finland, no. 22508/02, §§ 48-53, 17 July 2007 and Ekholm v. Finland, no. 68050/01, §§ 62-66, 24 July 2007).
• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37520/07

  NISKASAARI AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases against Finland (see, for example, Riihikallio and Others v. Finland, no. 25072/02, §§ 22-27, 31 May 2007; Ekholm v. Finland, no. 68050/01, §§ 62-66, 24 July 2007; and Rafael Ahlskog v. Finland, no. 23667/06, §§ 18-24, 13 November 2008).
• EGMR, 06.01.2009 - 20532/05

  VIINIKANOJA v. FINLAND

  Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases against Finland (see, for example, Riihikallio and Others v. Finland, no. 25072/02, §§ 22-27, 31 May 2007; F. and M. v. Finland, no. 22508/02, §§ 48-53, 17 July 2007 and Ekholm v. Finland, no. 68050/01, §§ 62-66, 24 July 2007).

 
• EGMR, 07.09.2010 - 47182/09

  AUTO-NESTOR OY AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases against Finland (see, for example, Riihikallio and Others v. Finland, no. 25072/02, §§ 22-27, 31 May 2007; Ekholm v. Finland, no. 68050/01, §§ 62-66, 24 July 2007; and Rafael Ahlskog v. Finland, no. 23667/06, §§ 18-24, 13 November 2008).
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 54841/08

  POHJARAKENNUS OY KORPELA v. FINLAND

  Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases against Finland (see, for example, Riihikallio and Others v. Finland, no. 25072/02, §§ 22-27, 31 May 2007; F. and M. v. Finland, no. 22508/02, §§ 48-53, 17 July 2007 and Ekholm v. Finland, no. 68050/01, §§ 62-66, 24 July 2007).
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 12490/06

  ACKERMANN v. FINLAND

  Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases against Finland (see, for example, Riihikallio and Others v. Finland, no. 25072/02, §§ 22-27, 31 May 2007; Ekholm v. Finland, no. 68050/01, §§ 62-66, 24 July 2007; and Rafael Ahlskog v. Finland, no. 23667/06, §§ 18-24, 13 November 2008).
• EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 59531/08

  V.S. v. FINLAND

  Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases against Finland (see, for example, Riihikallio and Others v. Finland, no. 25072/02, §§ 22-27, 31 May 2007; F. and M. v. Finland, no. 22508/02, §§ 48-53, 17 July 2007 and Ekholm v. Finland, no. 68050/01, §§ 62-66, 24 July 2007).
• EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 48915/06

  S. v. FINLAND

  Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases against Finland (see, for example, Riihikallio and Others v. Finland, no. 25072/02, §§ 22-27, 31 May 2007; F. and M. v. Finland, no. 22508/02, §§ 48-53, 17 July 2007 and Ekholm v. Finland, no. 68050/01, §§ 62-66, 24 July 2007).
• EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 59555/08

  LEHTONEN v. FINLAND

  Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases against Finland (see, for example, Riihikallio and Others v. Finland, no. 25072/02, §§ 22-27, 31 May 2007; Ekholm v. Finland, no. 68050/01, §§ 62-66, 24 July 2007; and Rafael Ahlskog v. Finland, no. 23667/06, §§ 18-24, 13 November 2008).
• EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 37484/07

  MOLANDER v. FINLAND

  Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases against Finland (see, for example, Riihikallio and Others v. Finland, no. 25072/02, §§ 22-27, 31 May 2007; Ekholm v. Finland, no. 68050/01, §§ 62-66, 24 July 2007; and Rafael Ahlskog v. Finland, no. 23667/06, §§ 18-24, 13 November 2008).
• EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 23996/06

  LIEBKIND v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 31.08.2010 - 24405/07

  LEHTINEN v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 16428/09

  MARSYNAHO v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 35631/07

  SIITONEN v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 11459/07

  LANDGREN v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 13224/05

  LIUKSILA v. FINLAND