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 ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• 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, 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

  VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE

  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, 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, 19.06.2018 - 52195/12

  NOVAK v. SLOVENIA

  For a detailed presentation of the 2006 Act, see Zunic v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 24342/04, §§ 16-26, 18 October 2007, and Zurej 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 Zunic v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 24342/04, § 24, 18 October 2007).

• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 23056/09

  MIANOWICZ v. GERMANY AND OTHER APPLICATIONS

  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, 04.09.2014 - 1071/12

  DRENK c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

  Elle relève en outre que, contrairement à la réglementation slovène (voir Žunic c. Slovénie (déc.), no 24342/04, 18 octobre 2007, §§ 24 et 47 ; X c. Slovénie, no 40245/10, § 78, 28 juin 2012) qui est à l'origine du rejet de l'exception de non-épuisement dans les affaires slovènes similaires (Eberhard et M., nos 8673/05 et 9733/05, § 105, 1er décembre 2009 ; Gobec c. Slovénie, no 7233/04, § 118, 3 octobre 2013), la loi no 82/1998 ne prévoit pas de limites au montant de l'indemnisation et n'empêche pas les requérants de demander des dommages-intérêts avant la clôture de la procédure.
• 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, 08.02.2022 - 19938/20

  Q AND R v. SLOVENIA

  The Court reiterates that for the compensation claim available under the 2006 Act to be considered effective the aggrieved party should have prompt access to it once he or she has made use of the accelerative remedies (see Zunic v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 24342/04, §§ 50 and 54.18 October 2007).
• EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 6194/11

  VALCHEVA AND ABRASHEV 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; Fakhretdinov and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 8673/05

  EBERHARD AND M. v. SLOVENIA

  For a detailed presentation of the domestic law, see Žunic v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 24342/04, §§ 16-26, 18 October 2007).
• EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 10386/03

  ZUREJ v. SLOVENIA

  For relevant domestic law see the Court's decision Žunic v. Slovenia (no. 24342/04, 18 October 2007).