Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOVACS v. HUNGARY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the labour court proceedings Inadmissible under Art. 6-1 with regard to the criminal proceedings Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ...

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 25130/94

  LIE AND BERNTSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2004 - 67660/01

  Accordingly, he can no longer claim to be a victim, for the purposes of Article 34, of a violation of Article 6 § 1. This complaint must therefore be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention (see Lie and Bernsten, (dec.), no. 25130/94).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2004 - 67660/01

  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, 11.01.2011 - 5770/05

  SOMOGYI v. HUNGARY

  Accordingly, he can no longer claim to be a victim, for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention, of a violation of Article 6 § 1 (see Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI; Kalmár v. Hungary, no. 32783/03, § 27, 3 October 2006; Dányádi v. Hungary (dec.), no. 10656/03, 6 July 2006; Tamás Kovács v. Hungary, no. 67660/01, § 26, 28 September 2004; Lie and Berntsen v. Norway (dec.), no. 25130/94, 16 December 1999).
• EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 17604/05

  GOLDMANN AND SZENASZKY v. HUNGARY

  Against this background, the Court is satisfied that the applicants obtained adequate redress in respect of this period of five years and six months, itself involving three court instances (see Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI; Kalmár v. Hungary, no. 32783/03, § 27, 3 October 2006; Dányádi v. Hungary (dec.), no. 10656/03, 6 July 2006; Tamás Kovács v. Hungary, no. 67660/01, § 26, 28 September 2004; Lie and Berntsen v. Norway (dec.), no. 25130/94, 16 December 1999).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 32783/03

  KALMAR v. HUNGARY

  This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI; Lie and Bernsten (dec.), no. 25130/94; Tamás Kovács v. Hungary, no. 67660/01, § 26, 28 September 2004).

 
• EGMR, 06.07.2006 - 10656/03

  DANYADI v. HUNGARY

  This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI; Lie and Bernsten (dec.), no. 25130/94; Tamás Kovács v. Hungary, no. 67660/01, § 26, 28 September 2004).
• EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 34215/11

  KOLACZYK AND KWIATKOWSKI v. POLAND

  This part of the application is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI, and Tamás Kovács v. Hungary, no. 67660/01, § 26, 28 September 2004).
• EGMR, 27.08.2013 - 61403/10

  B.G. v. POLAND

  The application is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI, and Tamás Kovács v. Hungary, no. 67660/01, § 26, 28 September 2004).
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 43104/07

  MÁRTON v. HUNGARY

  Accordingly, he can no longer claim to be a victim, for the purposes of Article 34, of a violation of Article 6 § 1. The application is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003 XI and Tamás Kovács v. Hungary, no. 67660/01, § 26, 28 September 2004).
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 30806/07

  BESSENYEI v. HUNGARY

  Accordingly, he can no longer claim to be a victim, for the purposes of Article 34, of a violation of Article 6 § 1. The application is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI and Tamás Kovács v. Hungary, no. 67660/01, § 26, 28 September 2004).
• EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 22920/05

  GNÁNDT v. HUNGARY

  This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI; Kalmár v. Hungary, no. 32783/03, § 27, 3 October 2006; Dányádi v. Hungary (dec.), no. 10656/03, 6 July 2006; Tamás Kovács v. Hungary, no. 67660/01, § 26, 28 September 2004; Lie and Berntsen v. Norway (dec.), no. 25130/94, 16 December 1999).
• EGMR, 16.09.2008 - 8185/05

  LEHEL v. HUNGARY

  Accordingly, he can no longer claim to be a victim, for the purposes of Article 34, of a violation of Article 6 § 1. The application is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI; Lie and Bernsten (dec.), no. 25130/94; Tamás Kovács v. Hungary, no. 67660/01, § 26, 28 September 2004).
• EGMR, 31.10.2006 - 41463/02

  FOLDES AND FOLDESNE HAJLIK v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 24.01.2006 - 22661/02

  KOVACS v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 41664/06

  GEDA v. HUNGARY