Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 01.02.2017

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 17229/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,56059
EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 17229/04 (https://dejure.org/2011,56059)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08.03.2011 - 17229/04 (https://dejure.org/2011,56059)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08. März 2011 - 17229/04 (https://dejure.org/2011,56059)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,56059) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

  • EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01

    NOGOLICA c. CROATIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 17229/04
    Finally, the effectiveness of a particular remedy is normally assessed with reference to the date on which the application was lodged (see, for example, Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001-V (extracts)), this rule, however, being subject to exceptions which may be justified by the specific circumstances of each case (see Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII).

    Further, when the Court allowed for such an exception the remedies referred to had been recently introduced and there was no established domestic case-law confirming the effectiveness of the remedy (see Giacometti and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 34939/97, ECHR 2001-XII, Ahlskog v. Finland (dec.), no. 5238/07, § 73, 9 November 2010, Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII, Grzincic v. Slovenia, cited above, § 108, Andrásik and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), nos.

    A similar decision was taken in respect of cases introduced against Croatia following the entry into force of a constitutional amendment permitting the Constitutional Court to provide redress of both a preventive and a compensatory nature to persons complaining about undue delays in judicial proceedings (see Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII).

  • EGMR, 16.05.2006 - 13628/03

    MIRAZOVIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 17229/04
    We are of the opinion that the Chamber should have addressed this discrepancy (an individual decision dec. no. 13628/03, vs. an individual act).

    The approach of the Court's case-law in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina has been to the effect that when the applicant has neither used the constitutional complaint nor shown that it was for any reason inadequate or ineffective (and we consider that no such reason had been shown in this case), the case is to be declared inadmissible for reasons of non-exhaustion (see Mirazovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, (dec.) no. 13628/03, 6 May 2006).

  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

    Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 17229/04
    However, the only remedies which the Convention requires to be exhausted are those which relate to the breaches alleged and at the same time are available and sufficient (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 75, ECHR 1999 V, McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 107, ECHR 2010-...).

    In this way, it is an important aspect of the principle that the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights (see the recapitulation of the relevant case-law in Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).

  • EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

    BRUSCO v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 17229/04
    These laws also contained transitional provisions bringing within the jurisdiction of domestic courts the cases already pending before this Court (see Grzincic v. Slovenia, cited above, § 48, Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, § 20, ECHR 2005-V, and Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX).

    Thus, the Court has held that applicants in cases against Italy, for instance, which concerned length of proceedings and had not been declared admissible, should be required to have recourse to the remedy introduced by the "Pinto Act" notwithstanding that it was enacted after their applications had been filed with the Court (see, for example, Giacometti and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 34939/97, ECHR 2001-XII; or Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX).

  • EGMR, 04.07.2002 - 20862/02

    SLAVICEK contre la CROATIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 17229/04
    Having regard to the fact that the Government have submitted no case-law to the contrary, the Court considers that a constitutional appeal cannot be considered an available remedy in respect of length of proceedings complaints due to there being no "individual decision" against which such an appeal could be lodged (see, mutatis mutandis, Mijuskovic v. Montenegro, cited above, § 74; and, a contrario, Slavicek v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20862/02, ECHR 2002-VII).

    no. 20862/02, ECHR 2002-VII) and Nogolica v. Croatia (cited above), a constitutional complaint was accepted by the Court as an effective remedy for length of proceedings cases which were still pending before the domestic courts in Croatia.

  • EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 57984/00

    ANDRASIK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 17229/04
    57984/00, 60226/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00 and 68563/01, ECHR 2002-IX).

    57984/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00, 68563/01 and 60226/00, ECHR 2002-IX) and Poland (see Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, § 40, ECHR 2005-V; and Michalak v. Poland (dec.), no. 24549/03, § 41, 1 March 2005).

  • EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

    CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 17229/04
    These laws also contained transitional provisions bringing within the jurisdiction of domestic courts the cases already pending before this Court (see Grzincic v. Slovenia, cited above, § 48, Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, § 20, ECHR 2005-V, and Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX).

    57984/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00, 68563/01 and 60226/00, ECHR 2002-IX) and Poland (see Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, § 40, ECHR 2005-V; and Michalak v. Poland (dec.), no. 24549/03, § 41, 1 March 2005).

  • EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 5238/07

    AHLSKOG v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 17229/04
    Further, when the Court allowed for such an exception the remedies referred to had been recently introduced and there was no established domestic case-law confirming the effectiveness of the remedy (see Giacometti and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 34939/97, ECHR 2001-XII, Ahlskog v. Finland (dec.), no. 5238/07, § 73, 9 November 2010, Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII, Grzincic v. Slovenia, cited above, § 108, Andrásik and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), nos.

    That rule is based on the assumption, reflected in Article 13 of the Convention - with which it has close affinity - that there is an effective remedy available in respect of the alleged breach in the domestic system (see the decision as to the admissibility of application no. 5238/07, Ahlskog v. Finland, 9 November 2010, § 68).

  • EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

    BAUMANN v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 17229/04
    Finally, the effectiveness of a particular remedy is normally assessed with reference to the date on which the application was lodged (see, for example, Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001-V (extracts)), this rule, however, being subject to exceptions which may be justified by the specific circumstances of each case (see Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII).

    However, 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, ECHR 2001-V (extracts)).

  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

    FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 17229/04
    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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 24549/03

    MICHALAK v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

    MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  • EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

    ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 26867/02

    GRZINCIC c. SLOVENIE

  • EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06

    McFARLANE v. IRELAND

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 01.02.2017 - 17229/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2017,1839
EGMR, 01.02.2017 - 17229/04 (https://dejure.org/2017,1839)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01.02.2017 - 17229/04 (https://dejure.org/2017,1839)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01. Februar 2017 - 17229/04 (https://dejure.org/2017,1839)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,1839) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ZIVALJEVIC CONTRE LE MONTÉNÉGRO

    Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ZIVALJEVIC AGAINST MONTENEGRO

    Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ...

  • EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 40234/16

    AMIS TELEKOM DOO v. SERBIA

    It was then that a "dispute" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 arose (see, mutatis mutandis, Zivaljevic v. Montenegro, no. 17229/04, § 75, 8 March 2011).
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