Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2005,42059
EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03 (https://dejure.org/2005,42059)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01.03.2005 - 15212/03 (https://dejure.org/2005,42059)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01. März 2005 - 15212/03 (https://dejure.org/2005,42059)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,42059) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

 
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 ... (450)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

  • EGMR, 04.07.2002 - 20862/02

    SLAVICEK contre la CROATIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03
    The Court had previously adopted the same position and had examined the effectiveness of a remedy before the practice of the domestic courts could be determined in Croatian cases which were similar in substance, (see, Nogolica, cited above, and Slavicek v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20862/02, ECHR 2002-VII).
  • EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 57984/00

    ANDRASIK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03
    57984/00, 60226/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00 and 68563/01, ECHR 2002-IX).
  • EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

    BRUSCO v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03
    However, the Court points out that the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust domestic remedies (see Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX).
     
  • EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01

    NOGOLICA c. CROATIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03
    In particular, the Court has previously departed from this general rule in cases against Italy, Croatia and Slovakia concerning remedies against the excessive length of proceedings (see Brusco, cited above, Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII, and Andrásik and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), nos.
  • EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

    MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03
    The existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see, among many authorities, Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, ECHR 2002-VIII).
  • EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

    BAUMANN v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03
    However, as it has held on many occasions, this rule is subject to exceptions, which may be justified by the particular circumstances of each case (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, 22 May 2001, and Brusco, cited above).
  • EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99

    Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere

    En particulier, la Cour s'est précédemment écartée de ce principe général par exemple dans des affaires dirigées contre l'Italie, la Croatie et la Slovaquie concernant des voies de recours pour durée excessive de la procédure (Brusco, précitée, Nogolica c. Croatie (déc.), no 77784/01, CEDH 2002-VIII, Andrásik et autres c. Slovaquie (déc.), nos 57984/00, 60226/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00 et 68563/01, CEDH 2002-IX) et dans Ä°çyer c. Turquie (déc.), (no 18888/02, CEDH 2006-I) concernant un nouveau recours indemnitaire pour ingérence dans le droit de propriété (voir aussi Charzynski c. Pologne (déc.), no 15212/03, CEDH 2005-V, et Tadeusz Michalak c. Pologne, (déc.), no 24549/03, toutes deux du 1er mars 2005).
  • EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 49281/09

    DANKO v. POLAND

    The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, are stated in the Court's decisions in cases of Charzynski v. Poland, no. 15212/03 (dec.), §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V; and Ratajczyk v. Poland, no. 11215/02 (dec.), ECHR 2005-VIII; and the judgments in the cases of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V; and Wawrzynowicz v. Poland, no. 73192/01, §§ 23-28, 17 July 2007.

    In particular, it considered that it was capable both of preventing or putting an end to an alleged violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time, and of providing adequate redress for any violation that had already occurred (see Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 36-42).

    With regard to the alleged lack of an "effective remedy" in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings, it should be recalled that the Court has already found the remedies provided for by the 2004 Act to be effective (see Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 12-23, 1 March 2005, ECHR 2005-V; Figiel v. Poland (no. 1), no. 38190/05, §§ 25-30, 17 July 2008; Figiel v. Poland (no. 2), no. 38206/05, §§ 29-34, 16 September 2008).

  • EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03

    POROWSKI v. POLAND

    The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, are described in the cases of Charzynski v. Poland (no. 15212/03 (dec.), §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V), Ratajczyk v. Poland (no. 11215/02 (dec.), ECHR 2005-VIII), and Krasuski v. Poland (no. 61444/00, §§ 43-46, ECHR 2005-V).

    In particular, the Court considered that the remedy was capable both of preventing the alleged violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time or its continuation, and of providing adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred (see Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 36-42, ECHR 2005-V).

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht