Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LEHTONEN v. FINLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.06.2006 - 11704/03

  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, 26.06.2001 - 26390/95

  BECK v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.06.2006 - 11704/03

  However, this general rule is subject to an exception when the national authorities have acknowledged in a sufficiently clear way the failure to observe the reasonable time requirement and have afforded redress by reducing the sentence in an express and measurable manner (see Eckle v. Germany, cited above, § 66, Beck v. Norway, no. 26390/95, § 27, 26 June 2001 and Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 77, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.06.2006 - 11704/03

  The Court recalls that an individual can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention when the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention and afforded redress (Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, § 66; for the application of this principle in the context of Article 6, see Lüdi v. Switzerland, judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238 at § 34 and Schlader v. Austria (dec.), no. 31093/96, 7 March 2000, unreported).
• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.06.2006 - 11704/03

  The Court recalls that an individual can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention when the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention and afforded redress (Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, § 66; for the application of this principle in the context of Article 6, see Lüdi v. Switzerland, judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238 at § 34 and Schlader v. Austria (dec.), no. 31093/96, 7 March 2000, unreported).

• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48059/06

  DIMITROV AND HAMANOV v. BULGARIA

  He cannot therefore be regarded as having been afforded quantifiable redress for the alleged breach of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see Jensen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X; Lehtonen v. Finland, no. 11704/03, § 16, 13 June 2006; Donner v. Austria, no. 32407/04, § 27, 22 February 2007; Taavitsainen v. Finland, no. 25597/07, §§ 30 and 31, 8 December 2009, and contrast Dzelili v. Germany, no. 65745/01, §§ 101-03, 10 November 2005; Cordier v. Germany (dec.), no. 71741/01, 19 January 2006; Bochev, cited above, § 83; Kaletsch v. Germany (dec.), no. 31890/06, 23 June 2009; and Stein v. Germany (dec.), no. 12895/05, 7 July 2009).