Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZUNIC v. SLOVENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (36)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2007 - 24342/04

  The same is necessarily true of the concept of "effective" remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2007 - 24342/04

  However, the Court points out that the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust domestic remedies (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, p. 1212, § 71; Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 40, pp. 18-19, § 37, and Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

  BRUSCO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2007 - 24342/04

  However, the Court points out that the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust domestic remedies (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, p. 1212, § 71; Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 40, pp. 18-19, § 37, and Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX).

• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 42320/98

  BELINGER v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2007 - 24342/04

  Moreover, according to the Court's settled case-law, a remedy which will not bear fruit in sufficient time does not fall within the category of effective remedies which Article 35 § 1 would oblige the applicants to exhaust (see Belinger v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 42320/98, 2 October 2001).
• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 26867/02

  GRZINCIC c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2007 - 24342/04

  On 3 May 2007, the Court delivered a judgment in the case of Grzincic v. Slovenia (no. 26867/02, 3 May 2007) followed by the decision in Korenjak v. Slovenia ((dec.) no. 463/03, § 62, 15 May 2007) in which the applicants complained, inter alia, of the length of proceedings which were pending at second instance.
• EGMR, 15.05.2007 - 463/03

  KORENJAK v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2007 - 24342/04

  On 3 May 2007, the Court delivered a judgment in the case of Grzincic v. Slovenia (no. 26867/02, 3 May 2007) followed by the decision in Korenjak v. Slovenia ((dec.) no. 463/03, § 62, 15 May 2007) in which the applicants complained, inter alia, of the length of proceedings which were pending at second instance.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 53126/07

  TARON v. GERMANY

  Darüber hinaus weist der Gerichtshof erneut darauf hin, dass die Staaten im Hinblick darauf, wie der innerstaatliche Rechtsbehelf bezüglich der Erfordernis der "angemessenen Frist" ausgestaltet werden soll, einen gewissen Beurteilungsspielraum genießen (siehe Scordino./. Italien (Nr. 1) [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 36813/97, Rdnrn. 188- 189, ECHR 2006-V, Fakhretdinov u. a../. Russland, a.a.O., und Žunic./. Slowenien (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 24342/04, 18. Oktober 2007).
• EGMR, 19.07.2012 - 48163/08

  [ENG]

  For a more detailed presentation of the relevant domestic law see Žunic v. Slovenia, (dec.) no. 24342/04, §§ 16-26, 18 October 2007, and Žurej v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 10386/03, 16 march 2010.

  In a subsequent case, Žunic v. Slovenia, (dec.) no. 24342/04, 18 October 2007), the Court specified that it was indispensable that the proceedings, which had already lasted a long time, were finally resolved particularly promptly following the exhaustion of the accelerative remedies (ibid. § 50).

• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 52195/12

  NOVAK v. SLOVENIA

  For a detailed presentation of the 2006 Act, see Žunič v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 24342/04, §§ 16-26, 18 October 2007, and Žurej v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 10386/03, §§ 14-15, 16 March 2010.

  Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court considers that the acknowledgment of the violation of the "reasonable time" requirement was made in substance, as in proceedings under the 2006 Act awards can only be made if a violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time has been established (see Žunič v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 24342/04, § 24, 18 October 2007).

• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 17915/16

  STOJANOVIC v. SLOVENIA

  For a detailed presentation of the 2006 Act, see Žunič v. Slovenia ((dec.), no. 24342/04, §§ 16-26, 18 October 2007) and Grzinčič v. Slovenia, (no. 26867/02, §§ 38-48, 3 May 2007).

  In particular, relying on the case of Žunič v. Slovenia ((dec.), no. 24342/04, § 54, 18 October 2007) they submitted that both proceedings at issue had been concluded in less than one year after the applicant had received the notifications issued by the President of the Ljubljana Local Court pursuant to section 6(4) of the 2006 Act (see paragraph 13 above).

• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48059/06

  DIMITROV AND HAMANOV v. BULGARIA

  It confirmed this position in three subsequent cases against Slovenia (see Žunic v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 24342/04, 18 October 2007; Tomazic v. Slovenia, no. 38350/02, § 37 in fine, 13 December 2007; and Robert Lesjak, cited above, § 36).
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 37346/05

  FINGER v. BULGARIA

  It confirmed this position in three subsequent cases against Slovenia (see Žunic v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 24342/04, 18 October 2007; Tomazic v. Slovenia, no. 38350/02, § 37 in fine, 13 December 2007; and Robert Lesjak v. Slovenia, no. 33946/03, § 36, 21 July 2009).
• EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 26716/09

  FAKHRETDINOV and OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court further concludes, as it has repeatedly done in other similar cases, that the States can choose solely to introduce a compensatory remedy in respect of undue length of proceedings without that remedy being automatically regarded as ineffective (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], cited above, § 158, and Žunic v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 24342/04, 18 October 2007).
• EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 6194/11

  VALCHEVA v. BULGARIA and 1 other application

  The Court notes at the outset that States can choose to introduce a solely compensatory remedy in respect of undue length of proceedings without that remedy being automatically regarded as ineffective (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII; Žunic v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 24342/04, 18 October 2007; Fakhretdinov and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 4458/10

  MIKALAUSKAS v. MALTA

  Bearing in mind that the Court must assess the effectiveness of remedies not only in theory but also in practice (see Zunic v. Slovenia, (dec.) no. 24342/04, 18 October 2007), in the absence of any submissions in this regard by the Government, or any examples of the courts" interpretation and use of this provision to contradict the applicant's claim as to the limited scope of this remedy, the Court cannot, for the purposes of the present case, consider it a suitable course by which the lawfulness of the applicant's detention could be determined in the light of the Convention.
• EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 65187/10

  BALAKCHIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  The Court notes at the outset that States can choose to introduce a solely compensatory remedy in respect of undue length of proceedings without that remedy being automatically regarded as ineffective (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII; Žunic v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 24342/04, 18 October 2007; and Fakhretdinov and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 16400/06

  NEZIROVIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 04.09.2014 - 1071/12

  DRENK c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 23056/09

  MIANOWICZ v. GERMANY AND OTHER APPLICATIONS
• EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 8673/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 19938/20

  Q AND R v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 7877/14

  NOVAK v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 33946/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 38975/05

  MADZAREVIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 53723/13

  ZAVODNIK v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 22.06.2010 - 28662/05

  MAKSIMOVIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 9842/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 8673/05

  EBERHARD AND M. v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 66433/13

  DRUSTVO ZA VARSTVO UPNIKOV v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 10017/10

  BELTRAM AND BELTRAM CEROVSEK v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 32238/08

  JEZNIK v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 44100/09

  VUKADINOVIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 27.09.2012 - 35016/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.12.2011 - 25634/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 56928/08

  DE MATEIS AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 10386/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 51282/18

  BIJELIC v. SLOVENIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 10882/10

  STANOJEVIC-STANIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 23.07.2015 - 49994/14

  D.P. v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 30658/03

  JESENICNIK v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 29978/06

  JAMA v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 28.06.2012 - 40245/10

  [ENG]