Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BLUM v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the length of the proceedings Inadmissible under Art. 6-1 with regard to impartiality and lack of an oral hearing before the Administrative Court and under Art. 6-2 and 6-3 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Costs and expenses ...

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 07.10.1988 - 10519/83

  SALABIAKU c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2005 - 31655/02

  It does, however, require the Contracting States to remain within certain limits in this respect as regards criminal law (see for instance the Salabiaku v. France judgment of 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141-A, pp. 15-16, § 28).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21980/93

  BLADET TROMSØ ET STENSAAS c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2005 - 31655/02

  The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, it has to consider whether the costs and expenses were actually and necessarily incurred in order to prevent or obtain redress for the matter found to constitute a violation of the Convention and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for instance, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 80, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2005 - 31655/02

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the criteria established by its case-law, particularly the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant 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 and Humen v. Poland [GC], no. 26614/95, § 60, 15 October 1999).
• EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13161/87

  ARTNER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2005 - 31655/02

  Accordingly, the fact that it was impossible to hear J.Z before the Independent Administrative Panel, did not, in the circumstances of the case, infringe the rights of the defence to such an extent that it constituted a breach of §§ 1 and 3 of Article 6 of the Convention (see mutatis mutandis Artner v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, p. 10, §§ 20-24).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 18.07.2013 - C-60/12

  Baláz - Polizeiliche und justizielle Zusammenarbeit in Strafsachen - …

  Die österreichische Regierung verweist außerdem auf folgende Urteile des EGMR: vom 27. Mai 2004, Yavus/Österreich (Beschwerde Nr. 46549/99), vom 5. Dezember 2005, Liedermann/Österreich (Beschwerde Nr. 54272/00), vom 3. Februar 2005, Blum/Österreich (Beschwerde Nr. 31655/02), vom 8. Juni 2006, Kaya/Österreich (Beschwerde Nr. 54698/00), vom 5. Oktober 2006, Müller/Österreich (Beschwerde Nr. 12555/03), vom 7. Dezember 2006, Hauser-Sporn/Österreich (Beschwerde Nr. 37301/03), und vom 26. Juli 2007, Stempfer/Österreich (Beschwerde Nr. 18294/03).