Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HOLZINGER v. AUSTRIA (No. 2)

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion) Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 28898/95
• EGMR, 12.10.1999 - 28898/95
• EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 28898/95

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• BVerwG, 25.08.1966 - III C 225.64

  Minderung der Hauptentschädigung wegen der Ermäßigungsbeträge und …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 28898/95

  The applicant limited the amount claimed to AS 24, 339.80 and submitted further documentation.

• EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 37198/20

  HOZA v. AUSTRIA

  In the leading cases of Rambauske v. Austria, no. 45369/07, §§ 21-23, 28 January 2010, and Holzinger v. Austria (no. 2), no. 28898/95, §§ 26-29, 30 January 2001, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
• EGMR, 11.04.2017 - 58049/11

  BERGER v. AUSTRIA

  Thus, where proceedings include a substantial period during which the applicant has no remedy to expedite them at his or her disposal, a request under section 91 cannot be considered an effective remedy (see, mutatis mutandis, Holzinger (no. 2) v. Austria, no. 28898/95, § 21-22, ECHR 2001-I).
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 45950/99

  DJANGOZOV v. BULGARIA

  Even if it is accepted that after its introduction in July 1999 the applicant could have effectively fought against the further delays by filing such complaints, that could not have made up for the delay already accumulated during the period 1995-99. In this connection, the Court notes that the effectiveness of a remedy may depend on whether it has a significant effect on the length of the proceedings as a whole (see Holzinger v. Austria (No. 1), no. 23459/94, § 22, ECHR 2001-I, Holzinger v. Austria (No. 2), no. 28898/95, § 21, 30 January 2001 and Rajak v. Croatia, no. 49706/99, §§ 33-35, 28 June 2001).

 
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 39832/98

  TODOROV v. BULGARIA

  Even if it is accepted that after its introduction in July 1999 the applicant could have effectively fought against the further delays by filing such complaints, that could not have made up for the delay already accumulated during the period 1993-99. In this connection, the Court notes that the effectiveness of a remedy may depend on whether it has a significant effect on the length of the proceedings as a whole (see Holzinger v. Austria (No. 1), no. 23459/94, § 22, ECHR 2001-I, Holzinger v. Austria (No. 2), no. 28898/95, § 21, 30 January 2001, and Rajak v. Croatia, no. 49706/99, §§ 33-35, 28 June 2001).
• EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 47877/99

  RACHEVI v. BULGARIA

  However, the Court considers that it is not necessary in the present case to examine the question whether a "complaint about delays" under Article 217a of the CCP has to be used in respect of complaints about the length of court proceedings, as even assuming that it might be an effective remedy in this respect, the effectiveness of such a remedy may depend on whether it has a significant effect on the length of the proceedings as a whole (see Holzinger v. Austria (No. 1), no. 23459/94, § 22, ECHR 2001-I, Holzinger v. Austria (No. 2), no. 28898/95, § 21, 30 January 2001 and Rajak v. Croatia, no. 49706/99, §§ 33-35, 28 June 2001).
• EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 47829/99

  DIMITROV v. BULGARIA

  Even if it is accepted that after its introduction in July 1999 the applicant could have effectively fought against the further delays by filing such complaints, that could not have made up for the delay already accumulated during the period 1992-99. In this connection, the Court notes that the effectiveness of a remedy may depend on whether it has a significant effect on the length of the proceedings as a whole (see Holzinger v. Austria (No. 1), no. 23459/94, § 22, ECHR 2001-I, Holzinger v. Austria (No. 2), no. 28898/95, § 21, 30 January 2001 and Rajak v. Croatia, no. 49706/99, §§ 33-35, 28 June 2001).
• EGMR, 18.10.2007 - 59523/00

  SIMIZOV v. BULGARIA

  However, by the time this remedy was introduced in July 1999, very significant delays had already accumulated during the period 1995-99. In this connection, the Court notes that the effectiveness of a remedy may depend on whether it has a significant effect on the length of the proceedings as a whole (see Holzinger v. Austria (No. 1), no. 23459/94, § 22, ECHR 2001-I, Holzinger v. Austria (No. 2), no. 28898/95, § 21, 30 January 2001, and Rajak v. Croatia, no. 49706/99, §§ 33-35, 28 June 2001).
• EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 65013/11

  SEIDL v. AUSTRIA

  Thus, where proceedings include a substantial period during which the applicant has no remedy to expedite the proceedings at his/her disposal, a request under section 91 cannot be considered an effective remedy (see Holzinger v. Austria (no. 2), no. 28898/95, §§ 21-22, 30 January 2001).
• EGMR, 04.09.2001 - 37835/97

  DIRTL v. AUSTRIA

  During that time the applicant could have lodged a request under section 91 of the Courts Act, which had entered into force on 1 January 1990 (cf. (Holzinger (No.2) v. Austria, no. 28898/95, 30.01.01, §§ 21-22) to expedite the proceedings.
• EGMR, 10.02.2022 - 51683/19

  KILCHES v. AUSTRIA

  In the leading cases of Rambauske v. Austria, no. 45369/07, §§ 21-23, 28 January 2010, and Holzinger v. Austria (no. 2), no. 28898/95, §§ 26-29, 30 January 2001, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 7877/14

  NOVAK v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 32942/03

  TUMA v. AUSTRIA