Weitere Entscheidungen unten: EGMR, 03.12.2020 | EGMR, 07.03.2017

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 10092/13, 20708/13, 22455/13, 61245/13, 61482/13, 22520/14, 13258/15   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2018,2002
EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 10092/13, 20708/13, 22455/13, 61245/13, 61482/13, 22520/14, 13258/15 (https://dejure.org/2018,2002)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08.02.2018 - 10092/13, 20708/13, 22455/13, 61245/13, 61482/13, 22520/14, 13258/15 (https://dejure.org/2018,2002)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08. Februar 2018 - 10092/13, 20708/13, 22455/13, 61245/13, 61482/13, 22520/14, 13258/15 (https://dejure.org/2018,2002)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,2002) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

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 (14)

  • AG Viersen, 22.02.2005 - 34 C 126/04

    Zulassung der Berufung bei Sicherung einer einheitlichen Rechtsprechung bzgl. der

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 10092/13
    1. Main proceedings (no. 34 C 126/2004).

    On 6 June 2007 the applicant claimed compensation under the State Liability Act from the Ministry of Justice for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the main proceedings, no. 34 C 126/2004.

    In contrast, the Court notes that in the main proceedings no. 34 C 126/2004 (application no. 22455/13) the applicant raised an objectively serious claim of violent conduct by police officers during the house search.

    37 C 51/2004, 18 C 84/2006, 34 C 126/2004, 5 Ca 176/2004 and 5 Ca 329/2006, 10 Ca 10/2005 and 10 Ca 400/2006, 10 C 49/2008 (at issue in applications nos. 10092/13, 20708/13, 22455/13, 61245/13, 61482/13 and 22520/14) and the complaint concerning the length of compensation proceedings no. 15 C 184/2012 (at issue in application no. 13258/15) are inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention on the grounds of non-compliance with the six-month rule, lack of a significant disadvantage and manifest ill-foundedness.

    34 C 126/2004.

  • EGMR, 04.09.2014 - 68919/10

    PETER v. GERMANY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 10092/13
    The "effectiveness" means that the remedy must be adequate and accessible; while it does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see Peter v. Germany, no. 68919/10, § 55, 4 September 2014, and Kudla, cited above, § 157).
  • EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 25551/05

    KOROLEV c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 10092/13
    The Court notes that the main element of the criterion set by this provision is whether the applicant has suffered any significant disadvantage (see Adrian Mihai Ionescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 36659/04, 1 June 2010; Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010; and Kudlicka v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 21588/12, 3 March 2015).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

    FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 10092/13
    The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of a 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, and Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 19, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

    CARDOT c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 10092/13
    Complaints intended to be made before the Court should thus have first been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 66, Reports 1996-IV; Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200; or similarly Lesko v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 49941/06, 17 November 2009).
  • EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 23563/07

    GAGLIANO GIORGI c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 10092/13
    The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see, among other authorities, Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, § 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; and, in the context of length-of-proceedings cases, Beggs v. the United Kingdom, no. 25133/06, § 205, 6 November 2012, or Chuykina v. Ukraine, no. 28924/04, § 31, 13 January 2011) and, having regard to its previous case-law, (in particular, Hajrudinovic v. Slovenia, no. 69319/12, 21 May 2015, and Gagliano Giorgi v. Italy, no. 23563/07, ECHR 2012 (extracts)), finds it appropriate to examine this complaint under both Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 separately.
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97

    COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 10092/13
    The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of a 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, and Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 19, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 31.03.1992 - 18020/91

    X c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 10092/13
    Turning to the determination of the relevant periods to be taken into account with regard to the proceedings at issue, the Court finds that in the case of the compensation proceedings the relevant period begins with bringing a preliminary claim with the Ministry of Justice as that procedure is a prerequisite for bringing court proceedings for compensation (see Mocie v. France, no. 46096/99, § 21, 8 April 2003; X v. France, 31 March 1992, § 31, Series A no. 234-C; and, mutatis mutandis, Schmidtová v. the Czech Republic, no. 48568/99, §§ 54-55, 22 July 2003).
  • EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 36659/04

    IONESCU c. ROUMANIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 10092/13
    The Court notes that the main element of the criterion set by this provision is whether the applicant has suffered any significant disadvantage (see Adrian Mihai Ionescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 36659/04, 1 June 2010; Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010; and Kudlicka v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 21588/12, 3 March 2015).
  • AG Solingen, 02.02.2012 - 12 C 301/11

    Frage der Anwendbarkeit des § 569 Abs. 3 Nr. 2 S. 1 BGB bei Aufgabe der Wohnung

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 10092/13
    In the meantime, the applicant initiated proceedings for compensation (no. 12 C 301/2011) for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the initial compensation proceedings and then proceedings for compensation for delays in that second case (no. 22 C 141/2015).
  • EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 21588/12

    KUDLICKA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  • EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 31380/08

    DEDIC v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  • EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 49941/06

    LESKO v. SLOVAKIA

  • EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 69319/12

    HAJRUDINOVIC v. SLOVENIA

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

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 03.12.2020 - 10092/13, 20708/13, 22455/13, 61245/13, 61482/13, 22520/14, 13258/15   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2020,40467
EGMR, 03.12.2020 - 10092/13, 20708/13, 22455/13, 61245/13, 61482/13, 22520/14, 13258/15 (https://dejure.org/2020,40467)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 03.12.2020 - 10092/13, 20708/13, 22455/13, 61245/13, 61482/13, 22520/14, 13258/15 (https://dejure.org/2020,40467)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 03. Dezember 2020 - 10092/13, 20708/13, 22455/13, 61245/13, 61482/13, 22520/14, 13258/15 (https://dejure.org/2020,40467)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2020,40467) 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

    ZIROVNICKÝ CONTRE LA RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

    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

    ZIROVNICKÝ AGAINST THE CZECH REPUBLIC

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

Verfahrensgang

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

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 60702/11, 59633/12, 10092/13, 20708/13, 22455/13, 61245/13, 61482/13, 22520/14, 13258/15   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2017,14612
EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 60702/11, 59633/12, 10092/13, 20708/13, 22455/13, 61245/13, 61482/13, 22520/14, 13258/15 (https://dejure.org/2017,14612)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 07.03.2017 - 60702/11, 59633/12, 10092/13, 20708/13, 22455/13, 61245/13, 61482/13, 22520/14, 13258/15 (https://dejure.org/2017,14612)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 07. März 2017 - 60702/11, 59633/12, 10092/13, 20708/13, 22455/13, 61245/13, 61482/13, 22520/14, 13258/15 (https://dejure.org/2017,14612)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,14612) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

 
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 (5)

  • EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75529/01

    Verschleppter Prozess - Mann prozessiert seit 16 Jahren um Entschädigung nach

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 60702/11
    Some States have understood the situation perfectly by choosing to combine two types of remedy, one designed to expedite the proceedings and the other to afford compensation (see Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 100, ECHR 2006 VII).
  • EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

    MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 60702/11
    Article 13, therefore, offers an alternative: a remedy is effective if it can be used either to expedite a decision by the courts dealing with the case, or to provide the litigant with adequate redress for delays that have already occurred (see Kudla, cited above, §§ 158-59, and Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII).
  • EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 45656/99

    CATALDO v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 60702/11
    Only where those two conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude examination of an application by the Court (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 71-72, ECHR 2006-V; Cataldo v. Italy (dec.), no. 45656/99, ECHR 2004-VI; and Vidakovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 16231/07, § 26, 24 May 2011).
  • EGMR, 04.09.2014 - 1071/12

    DRENK c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 60702/11
    Turning to the Czech legal system, the Court has also already acknowledged the positive developments made since the Court's Vokurka decision (cited above) concerning the legislation on an acceleratory remedy, namely the request to set a time-limit for a procedural step as provided by Article 174a of Act no. 6/2002 as in force since 1 July 2009 (see Drenk v. the Czech Republic, no. 1071/12, § 70, 4 September 2014).
  • EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 16231/07

    VIDAKOVIC v. SERBIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 60702/11
    Only where those two conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude examination of an application by the Court (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 71-72, ECHR 2006-V; Cataldo v. Italy (dec.), no. 45656/99, ECHR 2004-VI; and Vidakovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 16231/07, § 26, 24 May 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