Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  G.H. v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 23.10.1997 - 31266/96
• EGMR, 12.10.1999 - 31266/96
• EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 31266/96

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (1)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.12.1999 - 38952/97

  BOUILLY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 31266/96

  Although it is true that only those costs incurred in domestic proceedings in an attempt to prevent or redress the violation found by the Court may be reimbursed, nevertheless unreasonable delays in proceedings necessarily involve an increase in an applicant's costs (see the Bouilly v. France judgment of 7 December 1999, no. 38952/97, Section 3, ECHR 1999, § 33).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 15016/07

  SCHRADE v. GEORGIA

  However, this could hardly serve as a valid excuse for a total inactivity for two years, since the general principle under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is that it always remains the responsibility of the Contracting States to organise their courts in such a way as to guarantee everyone's right to the determination of their civil rights and obligations "within a reasonable time" (see Kharitonashvili v. Georgia, no. 41957/04, § 44, 10 February 2009, and G.H. v. Austria, no. 31266/96, § 20, 3 October 2000).
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 3150/05

  JEVREMOVIC v. SERBIA

  In any event, the remainder of the child maintenance claim is still pending at first instance and it is for Contracting States to organise their judicial systems in such a way that their courts can guarantee everyone's right to obtain a determination of their civil rights and obligations "within a reasonable time", in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, G.H. v. Austria, no. 31266/96, § 20, 3 October 2000).
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 52240/07

  [FRE]

  The fact that this period coincided with the general reorganisation of the judicial system (see paragraphs 14-16 above) could hardly have served as a valid excuse since the general principle under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is that it always remains the responsibility of the Contracting States to organise their courts in such a way as to guarantee everyone's right to the determination of their civil rights and obligations "within a reasonable time" (see Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, § 51, 6 September 2005; and G.H. v. Austria, no. 31266/96, § 20, 3 October 2000).