Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CICMANEC v. SLOVAKIA

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  CICMANEC v. SLOVAKIA

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

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 65302/11
• EGMR, 25.10.2017 - 65302/11

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 23.09.1997 - 22410/93

  ROBINS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 65302/11

  In addition, the Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention requires that all stages of legal proceedings concerning the determination of civil rights and obligations, not excluding stages subsequent to a judgment on the merits, be resolved within a reasonable time, and that this also includes in principle the stage of proceedings concerning costs (see Robins v. the United Kingdom no. 22410/93, §§ 28-29, ECHR 1997-V and Macková v. Slovakia, no. 51543/99/98, § 55, 29 March 2005).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 65302/11

  Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I, with further references).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 65302/11

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of this period 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, 21.06.2005 - 61811/00

  MILATOVÁ AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 65302/11

  Accordingly, the Government argued that the respective courts" observations in reply to the applicant's complaint in the present case had not constituted reasoned opinions on the merits of his complaint, unlike in the cases of Milatová and Others v. the Czech Republic (no. 61811/00, § 65, ECHR 2005-V) and Juricic v. Croatia (no. 58222/09, § 74, 26 July 2011).
• EGMR, 29.05.1986 - 9384/81

  Deumeland ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 65302/11

  At the same time, it notes that the applicability of the reasonable-time guarantee under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to the proceedings before the Constitutional Court in the present case has not been questioned (see, for example, Orsus and Others v. Croatia [GC], no. 15766/03, §§ 108 and 109, ECHR 2010; Süßmann v. Germany, 16 September 1996, § 41, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; and Deumeland v. Germany, 29 May 1986, § 77, Series A no. 100).
• EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 39765/04

  SALE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 65302/11

  Therefore, relying on the Court's judgments in the cases of Verdú Verdú v. Spain (no. 43432/02, 15 February 2007), Sale v. France (no. 39765/04, 21 March 2006), and Stepinska v. France (no. 1814/02, 15 June 2004), the Government had concluded that the applicant's complaint was unfounded.
• EGMR, 29.03.2005 - 51543/99

  MACKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 65302/11

  In addition, the Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention requires that all stages of legal proceedings concerning the determination of civil rights and obligations, not excluding stages subsequent to a judgment on the merits, be resolved within a reasonable time, and that this also includes in principle the stage of proceedings concerning costs (see Robins v. the United Kingdom no. 22410/93, §§ 28-29, ECHR 1997-V and Macková v. Slovakia, no. 51543/99/98, § 55, 29 March 2005).