Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HANSEN AND OTHERS v. DENMARK

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 34 MRK
  Inadmissible (no longer victims) (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (2)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2006 - 26194/03

  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, ECHR 2006-...; Riccardi Pizzati v. Italy [GC], no. 62361/01; Musci v. Italy [GC], no. 64699/01; Giuseppe Mostacciuolo v. Italy (No. 1) [GC], no. 64705/01; Giuseppe Mostacciuolo v. Italy (No. 2) [GC], no. 65102/01; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01; Apicella v. Italy [GC], no. 64890/01; Ernestina Zullo v. Italy [GC], no. 64897/01; and Giuseppina and Orestina Procaccini v. Italy [GC], no. 65075/01, all of 29 March 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Denmark (dec.), no. 48470/99, 20 September 2001, ECHR 2001-X and Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001, unpublished).
• EGMR, 02.02.1999 - 32460/96

  KELLING v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2006 - 26194/03

  Although the Supreme Court's reasoning could have been more precise, the Court is satisfied that at least in substance it acknowledged a failure to observe the reasonable time requirement (see for example Kelling v. Denmark (dec.), no. 32460/96, 2 February 1999; and mutatis mutandis Beck v. Norway, no. 26390/95, § 28, 26 June 2001).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 10597/03

  Rechtssache O. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Somit kann etwa mit der Befreiung des Betroffenen von den Gerichtskosten wie den Anwaltsgebühren, die er andernfalls hätte entrichten müssen, wegen der überlangen Verfahrensdauer im Hinblick auf die gerechte Entschädigung nach Artikel 41 der Konvention angemessene und ausreichende Wiedergutmachung geleistet werden (…siehe Rechtssachen Normann, a. a. O.; Ohlen ./. Dänemark (Streichung), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 63214/00, Rdnrn. 29-31, 24. Februar 2005; und Hansen und andere ./. Dänemark (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 26194/03, 29. Mai 2006).
• EGMR, 18.02.2016 - 10722/13

  A.K. v. LIECHTENSTEIN

  As regards the adequacy and sufficiency of redress afforded by domestic remedies for a breach of the reasonable-time requirement, the Court accepted, in particular, that such redress may in principle be granted by a reduction of, or exemption from, costs and expenses which an applicant would have had to pay otherwise in the legal proceedings at issue (compare, for instance, Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; Hansen and Others v. Denmark (dec.), no. 26194/03, 29 May 2006; and Brøsted v. Denmark (dec.), no. 21846/04, 30 August 2006).
• EGMR, 30.08.2006 - 21846/04

  BROSTED v. DENMARK

  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, 03.06.2008 - 34943/06

  PINDSTRUP MOSEBRUG A/S v. DENMARK

  In a Supreme Court decision of 24 April 2003, published in the Weekly Law Reports (Ugeskrift for Retsvæsen) 2003, p. 1550 (see Hansen and Others v. Denmark (dec.), no. 26194/03, 29 May 2006), section 312, subsection 2 was applied in a case between individuals and a public authority.

  However, in civil proceedings initiated by an individual against or involving a public authority, the Danish 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 are to be covered by the Treasury (see, among other authorities, Kirsten Norman v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; Hansen and Others v. Denmark (dec.), no. 26194/03, 29 May 2006; and Ugilt Hansen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 11968/04, 26 June 2006).

• EGMR, 03.09.2015 - 34459/10

  BEKERMAN v. LIECHTENSTEIN

  Such redress may, in particular, be granted by a reduction of, or exemption from, costs and expenses which an applicant would have had to pay otherwise in the legal proceedings at issue (see, for instance, Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; Hansen and Others v. Denmark (dec.), no. 26194/03, 29 May 2006; and Brøsted v. Denmark (dec.), no. 21846/04, 30 August 2006).
• EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 49438/99

  STAYKOV v. BULGARIA

  Although that court's reasoning on these points could have been more precise, the Court accepts that it did acknowledge the failure of the domestic authorities to comply with Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention in these respects (see, mutatis mutandis, Hansen and Others v. Denmark (dec.), no. 26194/03, 29 May 2006).
• EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 16800/11

  ZEREBKOVS v. LATVIA

  Furthermore, the Government referred to Hansen and Others v. Denmark ((dec.), no. 26194/03, 29 May 2006) and argued that the reasoning by the domestic courts in the present case had left no room for doubt.
• EGMR, 16.09.2008 - 23890/06

  GAVRIC v. DENMARK

  According to domestic case-law, however, in civil proceedings initiated by an individual against or involving government institutions, if the courts, having examined a length of proceedings complaint, find a violation, they may grant redress therefore by, for example, exempting the individual from paying legal costs or by deciding that expenses and fees shall be covered by the Treasury (see, inter alia, Hansen and others v. Denmark (dec.), no. 26194/03 and Kirsten Norman v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001).
• EGMR, 04.09.2006 - 942/05

  MONEDERO MARTIN c. ESPAGNE

  Il est vrai que les juridictions auraient pu être plus précises, mais la Cour considère que, au moins en substance, elles ont reconnu que la durée de la procédure n'a pas été, malgré la complexité de l'affaire, raisonnable (voir, par exemple, Hansen c. Danemark (déc.), no 26194/03, 29 mai 2006).