Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 15152/12 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2014,506) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
VEISS v. LATVIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) (englisch)
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
Veiss v. Latvia
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
VEISS v. LATVIA
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87
RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 15152/12
The Court reiterates that it is not for the Convention bodies to put right of their own motion any shortcomings or lack of precision in the respondent Government's arguments (see Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 35, Series A no. 301-B). - EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 58497/08
TRUPS v. LATVIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 15152/12
It is true that the Court has accepted that in criminal cases a reduction of the final sentence imposed on the applicant may sometimes amount to such compensation (see, for example, Trūps v. Latvia (dec.), no. 58497/08, 20 November 2012). - EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94
PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 15152/12
The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of the 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, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II). - EGMR, 07.02.2002 - 53176/99
MIKULIC v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 15152/12
The Government, referring to Mikulic v. Croatia (no. 53176/99, § 44, ECHR 2002-I), also noted that cases concerning civil status required the national authorities to act with particular diligence in ensuring that proceedings made progress.
- EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 15016/07
SCHRADE v. GEORGIA
In any event, the relevant legislation seems to indicate that this remedy was not independent of discretionary action by the authorities, as the decision whether or not to initiate proceedings had to be taken by a relevant judicial official; no appeal against a refusal not to initiate those proceedings was available (see, mutatis mutandis, Veiss v. Latvia, no. 15152/12, § 68, 28 January 2014, and Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, § 63, ECHR 2005-X; see also, mutatis mutandis, Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, § 41, ECHR 2001-VIII). - EGMR, 09.11.2017 - 37105/09
LUTOVA v. LATVIA
As concerns the Government's second objection, the Court has already dismissed a similar argument in Veiss v. Latvia (no. 15152/12, § 71, 28 January 2014).