Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OLIVEIRA MODESTO AND OTHERS v. PORTUGAL

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

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 68445/10

  It should also be reiterated that the Court enjoys a certain discretion in the exercise of the power conferred by Article 41, as is borne out by the adjective "just" and the phrase "if necessary" (see Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 114, Series A no. 39).
• EGMR, 13.12.2000 - 33071/96

  MALHOUS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 68445/10

  The Court reiterates that where applicants die during the examination of a case, their heirs or next-of-kin may in principle pursue the application on their behalf (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; see also Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 41, ECHR 2000-IX, where the applicant's widow had a legitimate interest in pursuing the application).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97

  COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 68445/10

  At the outset, 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, and Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 19, ECHR 2000-IV).

 
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 68445/10

  At the outset, 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, and Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 19, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 68445/10

  The Court reiterates that where applicants die during the examination of a case, their heirs or next-of-kin may in principle pursue the application on their behalf (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; see also Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 41, ECHR 2000-IX, where the applicant's widow had a legitimate interest in pursuing the application).
• EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 14011/07

  FELBAB v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 68445/10

  In relation to the Government's argument that the applicants abused the rights set out in the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a), the Court reiterates that an application may only be rejected as an abuse of process in extraordinary circumstances, notably when there is persistent use of insulting or provocative language by an applicant (see Felbab v. Serbia, no. 14011/07, § 56, 14 April 2009), when the application was knowingly based on untrue facts, or when incomplete and thus misleading information concerning the very core of the case was submitted to the Court (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014).