Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FISMANAS AND GRIFLIT LTD. v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 23523/05

  The Court will therefore examine whether the length of proceedings was compatible with the requirements of Article 6 § 1. The Court recalls that the "reasonable" length of proceedings must be assessed in accordance with the circumstances of the case and the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the behaviour of the applicant and that of the competent 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, 15.10.1999 - 26614/95

  HUMEN c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 23523/05

  The Court reiterates that only delays attributable to the State may justify a finding of non-compliance with the "reasonable time" requirement (see Humen v. Poland [GC], no. 26614/95, § 66, 15 October 1999).
• EGMR, 01.04.2004 - 50357/99

  CAMBERROW MM5 AD v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 23523/05

  The Court has held on several occasions that disregarding a company's legal personality as regards the question of being the "person" directly affected will be justified only in exceptional circumstances, in particular where it is clearly established that it is impossible for the company to apply to the Court through the organs set up under its articles of incorporation or - in the event of liquidation or bankruptcy - through its liquidators or trustees in bankruptcy (see Camberrow MM5 AD v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 50357/99, 1 April 2004; Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, 24 October 1995, § 66, Series A no. 330-A).

• EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 302/05

  NORKUNAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 23523/05

  Having had regard to this Government's argument, the Court recalls its conclusion in the case of NorkÅ«nas v. Lithuania (no. 302/05, § 30, 20 January 2009), to the effect that in 2005, when the applicant lodged his application with the Court, there were no effective remedies in Lithuania that the applicant could use to complain about the length of domestic court proceedings.
• EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 16013/02

  CETVERTAKAS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 23523/05

  The Court concludes that since Mr Fismanas was not a party to the civil proceedings over the seizure of the wagons, he thus cannot be considered as a victim of a violation of the Convention within the meaning of Article 34 (see, Cetvertakas and Others v. Lithuania, no. 16013/02, § 28, 20 January 2009).
• EGMR, 07.03.2002 - 49126/99

  WEJRUP contre la DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 23523/05

  It should also be noted that according to the Court's case-law, in certain circumstances length of proceedings exceeding five or six years can still be considered as not excessive (see Ivashchenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 23728/03, 24 March 2009; Wejrup v. Denmark (dec.), no. 49126/99, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 23728/03

  IVASHCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 23523/05

  It should also be noted that according to the Court's case-law, in certain circumstances length of proceedings exceeding five or six years can still be considered as not excessive (see Ivashchenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 23728/03, 24 March 2009; Wejrup v. Denmark (dec.), no. 49126/99, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 06.11.2003 - 53161/99

  MEILUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 23523/05

  It shares the arguments presented by the Government that the complexity of the case was in first place preconditioned by the fact that several episodes of the criminal acts of financial nature had to be investigated (see, Slezevicius v. Lithuania, no. 55479/00, § 30, 13 November 2001, Meilus v. Lithuania, no. 53161/99, § 25, 6 November 2003).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 45879/09

  S.C. RED CREDIT S.R.L. v. ROMANIA

  The Court reiterates that disregarding a company's legal personality as regards the question of being the "person" directly affected will be justified only in exceptional circumstances, in particular where it is clearly established that it is impossible for the company to apply to the Court through the organs set up under its articles of incorporation or - in the event of liquidation or bankruptcy - through its liquidators or trustees in bankruptcy (see Fišmanas and Griflit Ltd. v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 23523/05, § 62, 5 November 2013; Camberrow MM5 AD v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 50357/99, 1 April 2004; and Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, 24 October 1995, § 66, Series A no. 330-A).