Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KRACUN v. SLOVENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2006 - 18831/02

  Given its jurisdiction ratione temporis, the Court can only consider the period which have elapsed since this day, although it will have regard to the stage reached in the proceedings in the domestic courts on that date (see, for instance, Belinger, cited above, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 123, ECHR 2000-XI).

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2006 - 18831/02

  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, 13.06.2002 - 42320/98

  BELINGER v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2006 - 18831/02

  The Court notes that the present application is similar to the cases of Belinger and Lukenda (see Belinger v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 42320/98, 2 October 2001 and Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, 6 October 2005).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.12.2016 - 23032/02

  LUKENDA AND 263 OTHER CASES AGAINST SLOVENIA

  18831/02.
• EGMR, 12.04.2012 - 21313/06

  KRALJ v. SLOVENIA

  Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having regard to its case-law on the subject (see, Vidic v. Slovenia, no. 54836/00, §§ 17-24, 3 August 2006; Kracun v. Slovenia, no. 18831/02, §§ 57-60, 30 November 2006 and Korda v. Slovenia, no. 25195/02, 30 November 2006, §§ 30-33) the Court considers that length of the proceedings, which lasted almost ten years at two levels of jurisdiction, was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.