Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  O'REILLY AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 28.02.2002 - 54725/00
• EGMR, 04.09.2003 - 54725/00
• EGMR, 29.07.2004 - 54725/00

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2004 - 54725/00

  In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicants have failed to demonstrate a clear causal connection between the legal costs claimed and the unreasonable length of proceedings found to disclose a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, judgment of 13 June 1994 (Article 50), Series A no. 285-C, §§ 16-20, and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 127, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 50389/99

  DORAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2004 - 54725/00

  As to the applicants" complaint under Article 13 that they had no effective domestic remedy as regards the excessive length of the proceedings, the Court recalls that the remedies on which the Government relied have been found, in the case of Doran v. Ireland (no. 50389/99, § 69, ECHR 2003-X), not to be effective so that the Court concluded in that case that there was a lack of effective domestic remedies as regards the length of civil proceedings in violation of Article 13. The Government have not presented any new evidence or arguments which would lead the Court to reconsider this finding and they did not suggest that the involvement of the President of the High Court (see paragraph 22 above) constituted an effective domestic remedy.
• EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2004 - 54725/00

  In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicants have failed to demonstrate a clear causal connection between the legal costs claimed and the unreasonable length of proceedings found to disclose a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, judgment of 13 June 1994 (Article 50), Series A no. 285-C, §§ 16-20, and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 127, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 18.10.1982 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN AND DE MEYERE v. BELGIUM (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2004 - 54725/00

  However, there is no evidence that any item was actually and necessarily incurred in domestic proceedings in order to prevent the violation or to obtain redress (see, for example, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, judgment of 18 October 1982 (Article 50), Series A no. 54).

• EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06

  McFARLANE v. IRELAND

  Chapter 4 of the Report is entitled "Time-limits and International Obligations" and noted that Ireland had been found in breach of Article 6 of the Convention (McMullen v. Ireland, no. 42297/98, 29 July 2004; Doran v. Ireland, no. 50389/99, ECHR 2003-X (extracts); O'Reilly and Others v. Ireland, no. 54725/00, 29 July 2004; and Barry v. Ireland, cited above).

  However, the [ECHR] in [O'Reilly and Others v. Ireland, no. 54725/00, 29 July 2004] found that this did not constitute an adequate remedy.

• EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 57665/12

  KOUFAKI ET ADEDY c. GRÈCE

  This margin is even wider when the issues involve an assessment of the priorities as to the allocation of limited State resources (see O'Reilly and Others v. Ireland (dec.), no. 54725/00, 28 February 2002; Pentiacova and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 14462/03, 4 January 2005; and Huc v. Romania and Germany (dec.), no. 7269/05, § 64, 1 December 2009).
• EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 4241/12

  McDONALD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The margin is particularly wide when, as in the present case, the issues involve an assessment of priorities in the context of the allocation of limited State resources (see, mutatis mutandis, Osman v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, p. 3159, § 116, O'Reilly and Others v. Ireland (dec.), no. 54725/00, 28 February 2002, unreported).
• EGMR, 08.09.2011 - 7812/04

  SUPERWOOD HOLDINGS PLC AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

  It sees no reason to find otherwise in a case concerning the length of civil proceedings (see, also, Doran v. Ireland, cited above, at §§ 55-69 and O"Reilly and Others v. Ireland, no. 54725/00, § 37, 29 July 2004).