Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 28.03.2019 - 53490/14, 47276/15, 30708/16, 18428/17 |
Zitiervorschläge
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28.03.2019 - 53490/14, 47276/15, 30708/16, 18428/17 (https://dejure.org/2019,6791)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28. März 2019 - 53490/14, 47276/15, 30708/16, 18428/17 (https://dejure.org/2019,6791)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2019,6791) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
GULÁCSINÉ SOMOGYI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94
PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2019 - 53490/14
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, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). - EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95
DALBAN v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2019 - 53490/14
The Court considers that the applicant's wife and daughter have a legitimate interest in obtaining a finding of a breach of the right guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to have the case heard within a reasonable time (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, §§ 1 and 39, ECHR 1999-VI, and Ernestina Zullo v. Italy [GC], no. 64897/01, §§ 36-37, 29 March 2006). - EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96
FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2019 - 53490/14
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, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).