Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 30.07.2020 - 11388/15, 20206/15, 22279/15, 33590/15 |
Zitiervorschläge
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30.07.2020 - 11388/15, 20206/15, 22279/15, 33590/15 (https://dejure.org/2020,20769)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30. Juli 2020 - 11388/15, 20206/15, 22279/15, 33590/15 (https://dejure.org/2020,20769)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2020,20769) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
GLAVINIC AND MARKOVIC v. CROATIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
GLAVINIC v. CROATIA
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 04.07.2002 - 20862/02
SLAVICEK contre la CROATIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2020 - 11388/15
The Court recognised that remedy as effective in terms of Article 13, which also meant that potential applicants had to use it in order to comply with the requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, before lodging applications with the Court (see Slavicek v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20862/02, ECHR 2002-VII). - EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 22000/03
RAYLYAN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2020 - 11388/15
Similarly, to decide if the delay in the enforcement was reasonable, the Court will look at the complexity of the enforcement proceedings, how the applicant and the authorities behaved, and the nature of the award (see Raylyan v. Russia, no. 22000/03, § 31, 15 February 2007). - EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 43603/05
RAUS AND RAUS-RADOVANOVIC v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2020 - 11388/15
This feature markedly distinguishes that remedy from similar purely acceleratory remedies for the length of administrative proceedings such as an appeal and action/application for failure to respond, which the Court has recognised as effective (see Pallanich v. Austria, no. 30160/96, 30 January 2001; Basic v. Austria, no. 29800/96, ECHR 2001I; and Raus and Raus-Radovanovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43603/05, 2 October 2008).
- EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 7877/14
NOVAK v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2020 - 11388/15
The Court first reiterates that a remedy for raising a complaint of a breach of the "reasonable time" requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention cannot be considered effective if it has neither preventive nor compensatory effect in respect of the length of the proceedings complained of (see Novak v. Croatia (dec.), no. 7877/14, § 48, 7 July 2016). - EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 26867/02
GRZINCIC c. SLOVENIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2020 - 11388/15
In the Court's view, this limited availability of the complementary remedy distinguishes the remedies available under the 2013 Courts Act from similar (combination of) remedies existing in Slovenia and Montenegro, which the Court found to be effective (see Grzincic v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 82, ECHR 2007-V (extracts); and Vukelic v. Montenegro, no. 58258/09, 4 June 2013). - EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96
FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2020 - 11388/15
Merits 78. 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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
- EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 41151/20
ALTIUS INSURANCE LTD v. CYPRUS
The Court considers that the civil proceedings in the applicant company's case, which lasted over thirteen years and seven months seem, at first glance, to have been unreasonably lengthy, and there appear to be no exceptional circumstances justifying their overall length (see, mutatis mutandis, Glavinic and Markovic v. Croatia, nos. 11388/15 and 25605/15, § 79, 30 July 2020).