Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 10675/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2004,56436
EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 10675/02 (https://dejure.org/2004,56436)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21.09.2004 - 10675/02 (https://dejure.org/2004,56436)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21. September 2004 - 10675/02 (https://dejure.org/2004,56436)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,56436) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (41)Zitiert selbst (8)

  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

    Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 10675/02
    Moreover, the Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, no specific remedy in respect of the excessive length of proceedings exists under Polish law (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 160, ECHR 2000-XI and D.M. v. Poland, no. 13557/02, §§ 47-50, 14 October 2003).
  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

    Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 10675/02
    The burden of proof is on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that an effective remedy was available in theory and in practice at the relevant time; that is to say, that the remedy was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V and T. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24724/94, § 55, 16 December 1999).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96
    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 10675/02
    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 criteria established by its case-law, particularly the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Humen v. Poland [GC], no. 266114/95, 15 October 1999, § 60).
  • EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85
    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 10675/02
    The Court reiterates firstly that the "civil" character of the right to enjoy a good reputation follows from its established case-law (see Helmers v. Sweden judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-A, p. 14, § 27 and Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316-B, § 58).
  • EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

    TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 10675/02
    The Court reiterates firstly that the "civil" character of the right to enjoy a good reputation follows from its established case-law (see Helmers v. Sweden judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-A, p. 14, § 27 and Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316-B, § 58).
  • EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24724/94

    Mord an James Bulger

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 10675/02
    The burden of proof is on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that an effective remedy was available in theory and in practice at the relevant time; that is to say, that the remedy was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V and T. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24724/94, § 55, 16 December 1999).
  • EGMR, 15.10.1999 - 26614/95

    HUMEN c. POLOGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 10675/02
    Nevertheless, in assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account must be taken of the state of proceedings at the time (see, among other authorities, Humen v. Poland, [GC], no. 26614/95, 15 October 1999, § 59).
  • EGMR, 14.10.2003 - 13557/02

    D.M. v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 10675/02
    Moreover, the Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, no specific remedy in respect of the excessive length of proceedings exists under Polish law (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 160, ECHR 2000-XI and D.M. v. Poland, no. 13557/02, §§ 47-50, 14 October 2003).
  • EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 7025/04
    It therefore considers that the delay occasioned by the Regional Court's failure to discipline the co-defendants and their lawyers is attributable to the State (see Kusmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, § 65, 21 September 2004).
  • EGMR, 09.12.2015 - 30210/96

    KUDLA ET 204 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE

    10675/02.
  • EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 73192/01

    WAWRZYNOWICZ v. POLAND

    The Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention as regards the guarantees of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Kusmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, judgment of 21 September 2004; Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, judgment of 13 July 2004) and the requirement of an effective remedy capable of providing appropriate redress for the damage resulting from the breach of this right (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-...; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006-...).

    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 and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Kusmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, judgment of 21 September 2004, § 62; and Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, judgment of 13 July 2004, § 45).

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht