Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BROSTED v. DENMARK

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 30.08.2006 - 21846/04
• EGMR, 15.03.2007 - 21846/04

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 29.05.2006 - 26194/03

  HANSEN AND OTHERS v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2006 - 21846/04

  Accordingly to domestic case-law, however, in civil proceedings initiated by an individual against or involving a public authority, the courts may grant redress for a length-of-proceedings violation, by for example exempting the individual from paying legal costs or by deciding that expenses and fees shall be covered by the Treasury (see, among others, Kirsten Norman v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001 and Hansen and others v. Denmark (dec.) no. 26194/03, 29 May 2006).

  The Court reiterates that under Article 34 of the Convention it may "receive applications from any person... claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto..." and that in principle a decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not sufficient to deprive him of his status as a "victim" unless, the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the failure to observe the reasonable time requirement and then provided redress therefor (see, for example, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 180, ECHR 2006-...; Eckle v. Germany judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, § 66; Jensen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 48470/99, 20 September 2001, ECHR 2001-X, Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001, and Hansen and others v. Denmark (dec.), no. 26194/03, 29 May 2006).

• EGMR, 02.02.1999 - 32460/96

  KELLING v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2006 - 21846/04

  The Court cannot exclude that ambiguous statements may amount to an acknowledgement, at least in substance, of a failure to observe the reasonable time requirement (see for example Kelling v. Denmark (dec.), no. 32460/96, 2 February 1999; and, mutatis mutandis, Hansen and others v Denmark (dec.), cited above).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2006 - 21846/04

  The Court reiterates that under Article 34 of the Convention it may "receive applications from any person... claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto..." and that in principle a decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not sufficient to deprive him of his status as a "victim" unless, the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the failure to observe the reasonable time requirement and then provided redress therefor (see, for example, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 180, ECHR 2006-...; Eckle v. Germany judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, § 66; Jensen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 48470/99, 20 September 2001, ECHR 2001-X, Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001, and Hansen and others v. Denmark (dec.), no. 26194/03, 29 May 2006).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen