Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TOMIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 13 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 13 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 18.10.1982 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN AND DE MEYERE v. BELGIUM (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 25959/06

  Regard being had to the information in its possession and the above criteria, however, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant the sum of EUR 950 for the costs and expenses incurred while attempting to expedite the proceedings complained of (see, mutatis mutandis, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, judgment of 18 October 1982 (Article 50), Series A no. 54, § 17; see also, argumentum a contrario, O'Reilly and Others v. Ireland, no. 54725/00, § 44, 29 July 2004).
• EGMR, 24.02.1995 - 16424/90

  McMICHAEL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 25959/06

  The Court concludes therefore that, notwithstanding the respondent State's margin of appreciation, the non-enforcement of the applicant's custody rights, as recognised in the Municipal Court's judgment of 25 February 2004, did amount to a separate breach of her right to respect for her family life as guaranteed by Article 8 (see, mutatis mutandis, McMichael v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 February 1995, Series A no. 307-B, § 91, and Pini and Others v. Romania, cited above).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 25959/06

  In particular, a remedy shall be "effective" if it can be used either to expedite the proceedings at issue or to provide the litigant with adequate redress for delays which have already occurred (see, mutatis mutandis, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 157-159, ECHR 2000-XI, Mifsud v. France (dec.), [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII, and Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], cited above, § 99).

 
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 25959/06

  In particular, a remedy shall be "effective" if it can be used either to expedite the proceedings at issue or to provide the litigant with adequate redress for delays which have already occurred (see, mutatis mutandis, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 157-159, ECHR 2000-XI, Mifsud v. France (dec.), [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII, and Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], cited above, § 99).
• EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 78028/01

  PINI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 25959/06

  Further, the Court notes that, irrespective of whether an enforcement is to be carried out against a private or a State actor, it is up to the State to take all necessary steps to execute a final court judgment as well as to, in so doing, ensure effective participation of its entire apparatus, failing which it will fall short of the requirements contained in Article 6 § 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, in the child custody context, Pini and Others v. Romania, nos. 78028/01 and 78030/01, §§ 174-189, ECHR 2004-V).
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75529/01

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 25959/06

  Finally, the Court reiterates that the decisive question in assessing the effectiveness of a remedy concerning procedural delay is whether or not there is a possibility for the applicant to be provided with direct and speedy redress, rather than the indirect protection of the rights guaranteed under Article 6 (see, mutatis mutandis, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 195, ECHR 2006, and Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 101, 8 June 2006).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 25959/06

  Where contact with the parent might appear to threaten the child's best interests, it is for the national authorities to strike a fair balance (see Hokkanen v. Finland, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299, p. 22, § 58; and Sylvester, cited above § 58).

• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 23087/07

  VELJKOV v. SERBIA

  Other relevant provisions are set out in the cases of V.A.M. v. Serbia (no. 39177/05, §§ 56-59 and 65-75, 13 March 2007), and Tomic v. Serbia (no. 25959/06, §§ 55-62 and 68-71, 26 June 2007).

  In cases concerning the enforcement of decisions in the sphere of family law, the Court has repeatedly found that what is decisive is whether the national authorities have taken all necessary steps to facilitate the execution, in so far as can reasonably be demanded in the special circumstances of each case (see, among other authorities, Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 58, Series A no. 299-A; Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, §§ 127-128, ECHR 2000-VIII; Glaser v. the United Kingdom, no. 32346/96, § 66, 19 September 2000; Hansen v. Turkey, no. 36141/97, §§ 97-99, 23 September 2003; Kallo v. Hungary (dec.), no. 70558/01, 14 October 2003; Tomic v. Serbia, no. 25959/06, §§ 100-102, 26 June 2007; Felbab v. Serbia, no. 14011/07, § 67, 14 April 2009; and Krivosej v. Serbia, no. 42559/08, § 52, 13 April 2010).