Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PAVLIK v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2007 - 74827/01

  The Court notes that the suspicion against the applicant was based on testimonies of several witnesses and finds that the "reasonableness" of the suspicion raises no issue under Article 5 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 155, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2007 - 74827/01

  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 (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).

• EGMR, 21.09.2023 - 19303/20

  SARKOCY v. SLOVAKIA

  Although it is prevented from examining the period prior to its strike-out decision (see paragraph 7 above), that part of the proceedings cannot be dissociated completely from the part which is under examination, and it should be taken into consideration (see Pavlík v. Slovakia, no. 74827/01, § 107, 30 January 2007).
• EGMR, 10.03.2022 - 38811/21

  BRYCHTA v. SLOVAKIA

  The Court has established clear and extensive case-law related to the excessive length of criminal proceedings (see, for example, Pavlík v. Slovakia, no. 74827/01, 30 April 2007).
• EGMR, 29.09.2015 - 63158/14

  PERHÁCS v. SLOVAKIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Slovakia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-227, ECHR 2006-V; Pavlík v. Slovakia, no. 74827/01, §§ 109-111, 30 January 2007 or Krumpel and Krumpelová v. Slovakia, no. 56195/00, §§ 50-51, 5 July 2005).
• EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 30157/03

  MICHALAK v. SLOVAKIA

  The relevant statutory provisions and judicial practice are summarised in Furdík v. Slovakia ((dec.), no. 42994/05, 2 December 2008), Kontrová v. Slovakia (no. 7510/04, §§ 33 to 35, ECHR 2007-VI (extracts)), Nesták v. Slovakia (no. 65559/01, §§ 48-52, 27 February 2007), Pavlík v. Slovakia (no. 74827/01, §§ 62 to 66, 30 January 2007), Kvasnica v. Slovakia ((dec.) no. 72094/01, 26 September 2006), Babylonová v. Slovakia (no. 69146/01, § 21, ECHR 2006-VIII), Kontrová v. Slovakia (cited above (dec.), 13 June 2006) and Varga v. Slovakia ((dec.), no. 47811/99, 22 June 2004).