Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 23459/94   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2001,36030
EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 23459/94 (https://dejure.org/2001,36030)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30.01.2001 - 23459/94 (https://dejure.org/2001,36030)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30. Januar 2001 - 23459/94 (https://dejure.org/2001,36030)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2001,36030) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (32)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

  • EGMR, 02.12.1999 - 32082/96

    Überprüfung der Länge eines in Portugal anhängigen Strafverfahrens durch den

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 23459/94
    In that case, which concerned the length of criminal proceedings, the Court, reconsidering the Commission's case-law on the issue, found that an application under Articles 108 and 109 of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure was an effective remedy as regards complaints about the length of proceedings (Tomé Mota v. Portugal (dec.), no. 32082/96, ECHR 1999-IX).
  • EGMR, 20.11.2003 - 61930/00

    EL MASSRY v. AUSTRIA

    Referring to the case of Holzinger v. Austria (no. 23459/94, §§ 24-25, ECHR 2001-I), in which the Court found that a request under Section 91 of the Courts Act constitutes an effective remedy in order to accelerate proceedings, it was submitted that the applicant only filed one such application after the proceedings had already lasted five years, whereas this remedy would have been at the applicant's disposal during the whole proceedings.

    The Court recalls that a request under Section 91 of the Austrian Courts Act is, in principle, an effective remedy which has to be used in respect of complaints about the length of court proceedings (Holzinger v. Austria, no. 23459/94, §§ 24-25, ECHR 2001-I).

  • EGMR, 01.03.2018 - 78241/13

    SELAMI AND OTHERS v.

    Where, as in the present case, the victim status and therefore, the existence of a violation, is linked with the monetary redress afforded at domestic level, the Court's assessment necessarily involves comparison between the actual award and the amount that the Court would award in similar cases (see, mutatis mutandis, Scordino (no. 1), cited above, §§ 181 and 202 and Holzinger v. Austria (no. 1), no. 23459/94, § 21, ECHR 2001-I).
  • EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 16000/10

    IALTEXGAL AURICA S.A. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

    Where, as in the present case, the victim status and therefore, the existence of a violation, is linked with the monetary redress afforded at domestic level, the Court's assessment necessarily involves comparison between the actual award and the amount that the Court would award in similar cases (see, mutatis mutandis, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 181, ECHR 2006-V, and Holzinger v. Austria (no. 1), no. 23459/94, § 21, ECHR 2001-I).
  • EGMR, 11.04.2017 - 58049/11

    BERGER v. AUSTRIA

    The Court further recalls that in the case of Holzinger v. Austria (No. 1) (no. 23459/94, § 24-25, ECHR 2001-I, relating to civil proceedings; see also Talirz v. Austria (dec.), no. 37323/97, 11 September 2001, relating to criminal proceedings) it found that a request under section 91 of the Court Act is, in principle, an effective remedy which has to be used in respect of complaints about the length of court proceedings.
  • EGMR, 18.03.2010 - 58939/00

    KOUZMIN c. RUSSIE

    En tout état de cause, même si le jugement du 20 septembre 2001 contient une reconnaissance de violation des droits du requérant, aux yeux de la Cour, il ne saurait passer pour fournir à l'intéressé un redressement «suffisant» de façon à lui retirer la qualité de victime au sens de l'article 34 de la Convention (Cocchiarella c. Italie [GC], no 64886/01, § 72, CEDH 2006-V; Holzinger c. Autriche (no 1), no 23459/94, § 21, CEDH 2001-I ; Trepachkine c. Russie, no 36898/03, §§ 69-74, 19 juillet 2007).
  • EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 1089/09

    POCASOVSCHI AND MIHAILA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

    Where, as in the present case, the victim status and therefore, the existence of a violation, is linked with the monetary redress afforded at domestic level, the Court's assessment necessarily involves comparison between the actual award and the amount that the Court would award in similar cases (see, mutatis mutandis, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 181 and 202, ECHR 2006-V; see also Holzinger v. Austria (no. 1), no. 23459/94, § 21, ECHR 2001-I).
  • EGMR, 28.01.2010 - 20089/06

    PUCHSTEIN v. AUSTRIA

    While the Court held in Holzinger v. Austria (no. 1) (no. 23459/94, § 22, ECHR 2001-I) that the effectiveness of a remedy might depend on whether it had a significant effect on the length of the proceedings as a whole, the Court confirmed in its judgment in the case of Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) ([GC], no. 36813/97, § 187, ECHR 2006-V) that remedies that only provided for compensation for a violation might also be considered effective.
  • EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 623/02

    KUNZ c. SUISSE

    Dans une affaire comparable, la Cour a jugé une durée de procédure de dix-sept mois devant une seule instance compatible avec la Convention (Holzinger c. Autriche (no 1), no 23459/94, § 24, CEDH 2001-I ; voir également, trois affaires ayant trait à des procédures en dommages et intérêts, dans lesquelles la durée de plus de trois ans pour une seule instance a été jugé compatible avec l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention: Gemignani c. Italie, no 47772/99, §§ 7-12, 6 décembre 2001 ; Piccolo c. Italie, no 45891/99, §§ 6 - 13, 7 novembre 2000 ; P.G.V. c. Italie, no 45889/99, §§ 5 - 12, 7 novembre 2000).
  • EGMR, 09.07.2002 - 70883/01

    HANNAK v. AUSTRIA

    The Court recalls that, in the case of Holzinger v. Austria, it has found that a request under Section 91 of the Courts Act is an effective remedy which has to be used in respect of complaints about the length of court proceedings (see Holzinger v. Austria, no. 23459/94, §§ 24-25, ECHR 2001, which relates to civil proceedings; see also Talirz v. Austria (dec.) no. 37323/97, 11.09.2001, relating to criminal proceedings).
  • EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 12030/13

    CIMPOES v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

    Where, as in the present case, the victim status and therefore, the existence of a violation, is linked with the monetary redress afforded at domestic level, the Court's assessment necessarily involves comparison between the actual award and the amount that the Court would award in similar cases (see, mutatis mutandis, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 181, ECHR 2006-V, and Holzinger v. Austria (no. 1), no. 23459/94, § 21, ECHR 2001-I).
  • EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 43038/13

    MATASARU AND SAVITCHI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 7753/13

    CUCU AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 2380/03

    TZVYATKOV c. BULGARIE

  • EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 708/02

    FEHR c. SUISSE

  • EGMR, 15.09.2003 - 70579/01

    MAIER v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 03.06.2003 - 57080/00

    POKORNY v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 09.10.2001 - 35673/97

    SCHWEIGHOFER AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 37585/97

    V.P. v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 28571/06

    VR-BANK STUTTGART EG v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 28.01.2010 - 20087/06

    STECHAUNER v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 3885/04

    SEMOCHKIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 03.06.2003 - 72594/01

    GRAF v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 54383/00

    EREVANIAN contre la FRANCE

  • EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 50110/99

    MAURER v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 04.09.2001 - 37835/97

    DIRTL v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 32942/03

    TUMA v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 5010/04

    VON HOFFEN v. LIECHTENSTEIN

  • EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 20593/02

    MORINGER v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 15.09.2003 - 51941/99

    MEISCHBERGER v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 57448/00

    WINTERSBERGER v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 33992/07

    KRAKOLINIG v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 24.02.2011 - 28899/04

    ANTOANETA IVANOVA c. BULGARIE

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht