Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CENTRAL MEDITERRANEAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED v. MALTA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Art. 34, Art. 13+6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (victim) Preliminary objection left open (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 13+6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses (domestic ...

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 27798/95

  AMANN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 35829/03

  Lastly, the Court reiterates that the effectiveness of a remedy within the meaning of Article 13 does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see Sürmeli, cited above, § 98) and that the mere fact that an applicant's claim fails is not in itself sufficient to render the remedy ineffective (see Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, §§ 88-89, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 35829/03

  The Court has frequently held that the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law (see, for example, Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 97, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 35829/03

  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, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 35829/03

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 35829/03

  Remedies available to a litigant at domestic level for raising a complaint about the length of proceedings are "effective" within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention if they prevent the alleged violation or its continuation, or provide adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII; Scordino, cited above, §§ 186-188; and Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 99, 8 June 2006).
• EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 58698/00

  PAULINO TOMAS contre le PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 35829/03

  The term "effective" is also considered to mean that the remedy must be adequate and accessible (see Paulino Tomás v. Portugal (dec.), no. 58698/00, ECHR 2003-XIII).
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75529/01

  Verschleppter Prozess - Mann prozessiert seit 16 Jahren um Entschädigung nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 35829/03

  Remedies available to a litigant at domestic level for raising a complaint about the length of proceedings are "effective" within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention if they prevent the alleged violation or its continuation, or provide adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII; Scordino, cited above, §§ 186-188; and Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 99, 8 June 2006).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 35829/03

  The Court reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for the breach of the Convention (see, for example, Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 32, §§ 69 et seq.; Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI; and Jensen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X).

• EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 71562/16

  CAMILLERI v. MALTA

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Malta, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; Zarb, cited above, § 40; and Central Mediterranean Development Corporation Limited v. Malta, no. 35829/03, §§ 36-43, 24 October 2006).
• EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 59421/14

  GATT AND CARUANA v. MALTA

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Malta, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; and Central Mediterranean Development Corporation Limited v. Malta, no. 35829/03, §§ 36-43, 24 October 2006).