Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KERN v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the length of the proceedings Inadmissible under Art. 6-1 with regard to the fairness of the proceedings Inadmissible under P1-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses ...

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 14206/02

  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 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).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 11796/85

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 14206/02

  The Court agrees with the Government that the period to be taken into consideration began on 28 December 1990 with the applicant's appeal against the District Agricultural Authority's decision of 12 December 1990 since it was at that moment that the "dispute" within the meaning of Article 6 arose (see Wiesinger v. Austria, judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 213, p. 20, § 51; and Kolb and Others v. Austria, nos. 35021/97 and 45774/99, § 49, 17 April 2003).
• EGMR, 07.12.1999 - 38952/97

  BOUILLY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 14206/02

  Furthermore, it cannot be excluded that the excessive duration of the proceedings increased the overall costs incurred therefor (see Bouilly v. France, no. 38952/97, § 33, 7 December 1999) and awards EUR 1, 000.

• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 74159/01

  EGGER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 14206/02

  As to the question whether the applicant has exhausted domestic remedies, the Court reiterates that a request for transfer of jurisdiction under Section 73 of the General Administrative Procedure Act (Devolutionsantrag) constitutes, in principle, an effective remedy which has to be used in respect of complaints about the length of administrative proceedings (see Egger v. Austria (dec.), no. 74159/01, 9 October 2003).
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 20077/02

  WOHLMEYER BAU GMBH v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 14206/02

  In the Court's view, a detailed examination as to whether the applicant could have made more efficient use of the remedy by using it at other stages of the proceedings, would overstretch the duties incumbent on an applicant pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see mutatis mutandis Wohlmeyer Bau GmbH v. Austria, no. 20077/02, § 45, 8 July 2004).
• EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 33915/96

  WALDER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 14206/02

  As to the complexity of the proceedings, the Court reiterates that land consolidation is by its nature a complex process, affecting the interests of both individuals and the community as a whole (see Walder v. Austria, no. 33915/96, § 30, 30 January 2001; and Kolb and Others v. Austria, cited above, § 52).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 34911/06

  DIGRYTE KLIBAVICIENE v. LITHUANIA

  The Court reiterates that it is not a court of appeal for the decisions of domestic courts and that, as a general rule, it is for those courts to interpret domestic law and assess the evidence before them (see Kern v. Austria, no. 14206/02, § 61, 24 February 2005, and Wittek v. Germany, no. 37290/97, § 49, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 12628/09

  [ENG]

  Its task under the Convention is to ascertain whether the proceedings as a whole were fair (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, §§ 28-29, ECHR 1999-I, and Kern v. Austria, no. 14206/02, § 61, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 45322/08

  SEIDL AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA

  The Court has already found that a detailed examination as to whether applicants could have made more efficient use of the request for transfer of jurisdiction pursuant to section 73 of the General Administrative Procedure Act, which is in principle an effective remedy, would overstretch the duties incumbent on an applicant pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Kern v. Austria, no. 14206/02, § 49, 24 February 2005; Klug v. Austria, no. 33928/05, § 31, 15 January 2009).

• EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 5455/06

  [ENG]

  In the Court's view, a detailed examination of whether the applicant could have made more efficient use of the remedy by using it at other stages of the proceedings, would overstretch the duties incumbent on an applicant pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Kern v. Austria, no. 14206/02, § 49, 24 February 2005, and, mutatis mutandis, Wohlmeyer Bau GmbH v. Austria, no. 20077/02, § 45, 8 July 2004).
• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 6379/08

  PFEIFENBERGER v. AUSTRIA

  The Court has already held in similar cases that a detailed examination as to whether the applicants could have made more efficient use of that remedy by using it at other stages of the proceedings, would overstretch the duties incumbent on applicants pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Kern v. Austria, no. 14206/02, § 49, 24 February 2005 and Klug v. Austria, no. 33928/05, § 31, 15 January 2009, both concerning land consolidation proceedings during which the applicants had successfully made use of the request for transfer of jurisdiction once or twice, respectively, and the Government had argued that, in addition, they should have done so at other stages of the proceedings).
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33928/05

  KLUG v. AUSTRIA

  In the Court's view, a detailed examination as to whether the applicants, or their predecessors, could have made more efficient use of the remedy by using it at other stages of the proceedings, would overstretch the duties incumbent on an applicant pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Kern v. Austria, no. 14206/02, § 49, 24 February 2005, and, mutatis mutandis, Wohlmeyer Bau GmbH v. Austria, no. 20077/02, § 45, 8 July 2004).
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 41113/08

  [ENG]

  However the Court has already held in similar cases that a detailed examination as to whether the applicants could have made more efficient use of that remedy by using it at other stages of the proceedings, would overstretch the duties incumbent on applicants pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Kern v. Austria, no. 14206/02, § 49, 24 February 2005 and Klug v. Austria, no. 33928/05, § 31, 15 January 2009, both concerning land consolidation proceedings during which the applicants had successfully made use of the request for transfer of jurisdiction once or twice, respectively, and the Government had argued that, in addition, they should have done so at other stages of the proceedings).
• EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 2884/04

  ORTNER v. AUSTRIA

  However, in accordance with its case-law in similar cases, the date when a "dispute" arose is to be taken as a starting point for the calculation of the length of proceedings (see Kolb and Others v. Austria, nos. 35021/97 and 45774/99, § 49, 17 April 2003, and Kern v. Austria, no. 14206/02, § 51, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 22.03.2011 - 25701/06

  [ENG]

  The Court has frequently held that an application for transfer of jurisdiction is in principle an effective remedy as regards complaints about the length of proceedings before administrative authorities (see Egger v. Austria (dec.), no. 74159/01, 9 October 2003; Kern v. Austria, no. 14206/02, § 49, 24 February 2005; and Ortner v. Austria, no. 2884/04, § 26, 31 May 2007).