Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 03.02.2005 - 19247/02   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2005,64934
EGMR, 03.02.2005 - 19247/02 (https://dejure.org/2005,64934)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 03.02.2005 - 19247/02 (https://dejure.org/2005,64934)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 03. Februar 2005 - 19247/02 (https://dejure.org/2005,64934)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,64934) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    FEHR v. AUSTRIA

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the length of the proceedings Inadmissible under Art. 6-1 with regard to impartiality and under Art. 6-2 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

 
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 ... (8)

  • EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 8140/04

    VITZTHUM v. AUSTRIA

    The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see, in particular, Fehr v. Austria, no. 19247/02, §§ 19-26, 3 February 2005; Blum v. Austria, no. 31655/02, §§ 22-24, 3 February 2005; and Yavuz v. Austria, no. 46549/99, §§ 36-40, 27 May 2004, all relating to criminal administrative proceedings which lasted somewhat longer than the present case but came before four levels of jurisdiction instead of three, and in which considerable delays occurred before the Administrative Court).
  • EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 18015/03

    SCHUTTE v. AUSTRIA

    The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see, in particular, Fehr v. Austria, no. 19247/02, §§ 19-26, 3 February 2005; Blum v. Austria, no. 31655/02, §§ 22-24, 3 February 2005; and Yavuz v. Austria, no. 46549/99, §§ 36-40, 27 May 2004, all concerning administrative criminal proceedings of a duration comparable to the present case and with considerable delays before the Administrative Court).
  • EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 35109/06

    PENIAS AND ORTMAIR v. AUSTRIA

    The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see, for instance, Gürsoy v. Austria, no. 20597/04, § 24, 5 June 2008, Schutte v. Austria, no. 18015/03, §§ 28-30, 26 July 2007; Vitzthum v. Austria, no. 8140/04, §§ 21-23, 26 July 2007; Fehr v. Austria, no. 19247/02, §§ 23-26, 3 February 2005; Blum v. Austria, no. 31655/02, §§ 22-24, 3 February 2005; and Yavuz v. Austria, no. 46549/99, §§ 36-40, 27 May 2004, all concerning administrative criminal proceedings of comparable duration and with considerable delays before the Administrative Court).
  • EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 18294/03

    STEMPFER v. AUSTRIA

    The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Geyer v. Austria, no. 69162/01, §§ 23-28, 7 July 2005; Fehr v. Austria, no. 19247/02, §§ 19-26, 3 February 2005; and Blum v. Austria, no. 31655/02, §§ 22-24, 3 February 2005, all concerning administrative criminal proceedings of a duration comparable to the present case and with considerable delays before the Administrative Court).
  • EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 29736/06

    DAVTYAN v. ARMENIA

    It is the role of the domestic courts to interpret and apply the relevant rules of procedural or substantive law (see, among other authorities, Fehr v. Austria, no. 19247/02, § 32, 3 February 2005).
  • EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 11724/04

    NIKOGHOSYAN AND MELKONYAN v. ARMENIA

    It is the role of the domestic courts to interpret and apply the relevant rules of procedural or substantive law (see, e.g., Fehr v. Austria, no. 19247/02, § 32, 3 February 2005).
  • EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 19065/05

    KHANYAN v. ARMENIA

    It is the role of the domestic courts to interpret and apply the relevant rules of procedural or substantive law (see, e.g., Fehr v. Austria, no. 19247/02, § 32, 3 February 2005).
  • EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 34334/04

    HARUTYUNYAN v. ARMENIA

    It is the role of the domestic courts to interpret and apply the relevant rules of procedural or substantive law (see, e.g., Fehr v. Austria, no. 19247/02, § 32, 3 February 2005).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht