Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SOCIEDADE DE CONSTRUCOES MARTINS AND VIEIRA, LDA v. PORTUGAL

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 56637/10

  With a view, however, to helping the respondent State fulfil its obligations under Article 46, the Court may seek to indicate the type of individual and/or general measures that might be taken in order to put an end to the situation it has found to exist (see Broniowski v. Poland (dec.) [GC], no. 31443/96, § 194, ECHR 2002-X; Scoppola (no. 2), cited above, § 148; and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 255, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 56637/10

  Given these provisions, it follows, inter alia, that a judgment in which the Court finds a breach imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned any sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in their domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to redress, in so far as possible, the effects thereof (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77

  PRETTO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 56637/10

  With respect to the conduct of the national authorities, the Court reiterates that a delay at some stage may be acceptable, if the overall duration of the proceedings cannot be deemed excessive (see, for example, Pretto and Others v. Italy, 8 December 1983, § 37, Series A no. 71).

 
• EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

  König ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 56637/10

  When determining whether the duration of criminal proceedings has been reasonable, the Court has had regard to factors such as the complexity of the case, the applicant's conduct and the conduct of the relevant administrative and judicial authorities (see König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, § 99, Series A no. 27, and Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 56637/10

  The Court reiterates that in criminal matters, the aim of Article 6 § 1, by which everyone has the right to a hearing within a reasonable time, is to ensure that the accused do not have to lie under a charge for too long and that the charge is determined (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 18, Series A no. 7, and Kart v. Turkey [GC], no. 8917/05, § 68, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 56637/10

  Nonetheless, the applicant's conduct, in itself legitimate, constitutes an objective fact which cannot be attributed to the respondent State, and which must be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether or not the reasonable time referred to in Article 6 § 1 has been exceeded (see Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 82, Series A no. 51).
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 56637/10

  Being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, § 38, ECHR 2001-VII, and Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 54, 17 September 2009), the Court considers that in the light of its case-law, the applicants" complaints concerning the length of proceedings should be examined from the standpoint of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention only.
• EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 8304/78

  CORIGLIANO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 56637/10

  As to the applicant's conduct, the Court reiterates that Article 6 does not require a person charged with a criminal offence to cooperate actively with the judicial authorities (see, among other authorities, Corigliano v. Italy, 10 December 1982, § 42, Series A no. 57).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 56637/10

  When determining whether the duration of criminal proceedings has been reasonable, the Court has had regard to factors such as the complexity of the case, the applicant's conduct and the conduct of the relevant administrative and judicial authorities (see König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, § 99, Series A no. 27, and Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).

• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 74693/17

  AGOSTINHO RIBEIRO v. PORTUGAL

  56637/10 and 5 others, 30 October 2014 the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 44097/13

  RIBEIRO MOURA c. PORTUGAL

  Elle relève que les exceptions et arguments soulevés par le Gouvernement ont déjà été rejetés précédemment (voir parmi d'autres, Martins Castro et Alves Correia de Castro c. Portugal, no 33729/06, 10 juin 2008 ; Garcia Franco et autres c. Portugal, no 9273/07, § 50, 22 juin 2010 ; Sociedade de Construções Martins & Vieira, Lda. et autres c. Portugal, nos 56637/10, 59856/10, 72525/10, 7646/11 et 12592/11, § 64, 30 octobre 2014) et ne voit pas de raison de parvenir à une conclusion différente dans le cas présent, tant en ce qui concerne la recevabilité que le fond du grief.
• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 32211/11

  MOLNÁR v. HUNGARY

  Nonetheless, the applicant's conduct, in itself legitimate, constitutes an objective fact which cannot be attributed to the respondent State, and which must be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether or not the reasonable time referred to in Article 6 § 1 has been exceeded (see Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 82, Series A no. 51, and Sociedade de Construções Martins & Vieira, Lda. and Others v. Portugal, nos. 56637/10 and 4 others, § 48, 30 October 2014).