Rechtsprechung
| EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 29752/96 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1997,29170) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SKOBRÁK AND PATAKI v. HUNGARY
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92
HOKKANEN v. FINLAND
Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 29752/96
The Commission recalls that, when assessing the reasonableness of the length of proceedings, the importance of what is at stake for the applicant in the litigation has to be taken into account (Eur. Court HR, Vallée v. France judgment of 26 April 1994, Series A no. 289-A, p. 17, para. 34; Hokkanen v. Finland judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A, p. 25, para. 69).It is essential that certain types of litigation, such as custody cases (cf. Eur. Court HR, Hokkanen v. Finland judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A, p. 26, para. 72) or employment disputes (cf. Eur. Court HR, Obermeier v. Austria judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A no. 179, p. 23, para. 72), be dealt with speedily.
- EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 7604/76
FOTI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 29752/96
However, in assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after this date, account must be taken of the then state of proceedings (cf., Eur. Court HR, Foti and others v. Italy judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56, p. 18, para. 53). - EGMR, 28.06.1990 - 11761/85
Obermeier ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 29752/96
It is essential that certain types of litigation, such as custody cases (cf. Eur. Court HR, Hokkanen v. Finland judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A, p. 26, para. 72) or employment disputes (cf. Eur. Court HR, Obermeier v. Austria judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A no. 179, p. 23, para. 72), be dealt with speedily. - EGMR, 12.10.1992 - 14104/88
T. c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 29752/96
However, the Commission, having regard to the fact that the action at issue was dealt with by two court instances, finds that the delays which occurred do not, as a whole, appear substantial enough for the total length of the proceedings, i.e. about four years subsequent to the ratification, to have exceeded an acceptable limit in the circumstances of the present case (cf. mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court HR, Cesarini v. Italy judgment of 12 October 1992, Series A no. 245, p. 26, para. 20).