Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  O'NEILL AND LAUCHLAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  O'NEILL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 41516/10, 75702/13
• EGMR, 05.07.2017 - 41516/10

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 28.04.2004 - 56679/00

  AZINAS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 41516/10

  It normally requires that the complaints intended to be made at international level should have been aired before the appropriate domestic courts, at least in substance, in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see, among many other authorities, Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III; and Nicklinson and Lamb v. the United Kingdom (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 41516/10

  The reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case which call for an overall assessment (Boddaert v. Belgium, 12 October 1992, § 36, Series A no. 235-D) and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the conduct of the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 41516/10

  On the latter point, what was at stake for the applicant has also to be taken into account (see, among many authorities, Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 67, ECHR 2007-II).

 
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  BAUMANN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 41516/10

  The requirement for the applicant to exhaust domestic remedies is normally determined with reference to the date on which the application was lodged with the Court (Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001-V (extracts)), subject to exceptions which may be justified by the particular circumstances of the case, notably following the creation of new remedies.
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 2478/15

  NICKLINSON AND LAMB v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 41516/10

  2478/15 and 1787/15, § 89, 23 June 2015).
• EGMR, 07.04.2015 - 6884/11

  Polizeigewalt bei G8 in Genua 2001: Italien verurteilt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 41516/10

  Nevertheless, the Court has accepted that applicants have exhausted domestic remedies where the last stage of such remedies was reached shortly after the lodging of the application but before it determined the issue of admissibility (Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 91, series A No. 13, EK v. Turkey (dec.), No. 28496/95, 28 November 2000, Karoussiotis v. Portugal, No. 23205/08, §§ 57 and 87-92, ECHR 2011 and Cestaro v. Italy, no. 6884/11, § 146, 7 April 2015).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 41516/10

  In criminal matters, the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 § 1 begins to run as soon as a person is "charged" and covers the whole of the proceedings in question, including appeal proceedings (see Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, p. 41, § 18, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 41516/10

  "Charge", for the purposes of Article 6 § 1, may be defined as "the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence", a definition that also corresponds to the test whether "the situation of the [suspect] has been substantially affected" (see, among other authorities, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, §§ 42 & 46, Series A no. 35 and Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 73, Series A no. 51).
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 41516/10

  "Charge", for the purposes of Article 6 § 1, may be defined as "the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence", a definition that also corresponds to the test whether "the situation of the [suspect] has been substantially affected" (see, among other authorities, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, §§ 42 & 46, Series A no. 35 and Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 73, Series A no. 51).
• EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 13089/87

  DOBBERTIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 41516/10

  What is determinative for the assessment under Article 6 § 1 is whether or not the overall length of the proceedings, taken as a whole, can be regarded as excessive (see Dobbertin v. France, 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-D).
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

• EuG, 05.10.2017 - T-175/15

  Mabrouk / Rat - Gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik - Restriktive Maßnahmen …

  Dennoch ist festzustellen, dass der EGMR im Rahmen dieser Rechtsprechung aus dem Grundsatz keine Verpflichtung der nationalen Behörden zur Beendigung eines Strafprozesses, der sich als übermäßig lang erweist, abgeleitet hat (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR vom 28. Juni 2016, 0'Neill und Lauchlan/Vereinigtes Königreich, CE:ECHR:2016:0628JUD004151610, § 87).

  Als Zweites ist festzustellen, dass im Licht der Rechtsprechung des EGMR die Wahrung des Rechts auf eine angemessene Verfahrensdauer, wie es im Völkerrecht verankert ist, unter Berücksichtigung der Umstände des Einzelfalls zu prüfen ist, was eine Gesamtwürdigung insbesondere anhand von Kriterien im Zusammenhang mit der Komplexität des Falles, dem Verhalten des Klägers und dem Verhalten der zuständigen Behörden voraussetzt (vgl. EGMR vom 28. Juni 2016, 0'Neill und Lauchlan/Vereinigtes Königreich, CE:ECHR:2016:0628JUD004151610, § 86 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung).