Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PRISCHL v. AUSTRIA

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

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

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 2881/04

  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, 30.10.1991 - 11796/85

  WIESINGER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 2881/04

  Consequently, the period to be taken into consideration began on 21 August 1995, when the applicant appealed against the amended consolidation plan (see Kolb and Others v. Austria, nos. 35021/97 and 45774/99, § 49, 17 April 2003 with a reference to Wiesinger v. Austria, judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 213, p. 20, § 51).

• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 58222/09

  JURICIC v. CROATIA

  In applying these principles to Constitutional Courts the Court has held that a hearing was normally not required in proceedings before such courts because, having been limited to an examination of constitutional issues, they had entailed an assessment not of points of fact but of points of law (see, for example, Zippel v. Germany (dec.), no. 30470/96, 23 October 1997; Siegl v. Austria (dec.), no. 36075/97, 8 February 2000; Weh and Weh v. Austria (dec.), no. 38544/97, 4 July 2002; Breierova and Others v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 57321/00, 8 October 2002; Milatová and Others, cited above, § 62; Novotka v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 74459/01, 8 November 2005; Prischl v. Austria, no. 2881/04, §§ 20-22, 26 April 2007; and, by contrast, Kugler v. Austria, no. 65631/01, §§ 47-53, 14 October 2010).
• EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 70597/11

  MEIMANIS v. LATVIA

  As regards the constitutional courts in particular, a hearing was not normally required as their competence was limited to an examination of constitutional issues and entailed an assessment of points of law and not facts (they referred to Zippel v. Germany (dec.), no. 30470/96, 23 October 1997; Weh and Weh v. Austria (dec.), no. no. 38544/97, 4 July 2002; and Prischl v. Austria, no. 2881/04, §§ 20-22, 26 April 2007).