Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JEZNIK v. SLOVENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Jeznik v. Slovenia

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.12.2007 - 38350/02

  TOMAZIC v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 32238/08

  For relevant domestic law see Tomazic v. Slovenia (no. 38350/02, 13 December 2007).

  Having regard to the 2006 Act as in force at the material time (see by contrast, Žurej v. Slovenia, (dec.), no. 24342/04, 18 October 2007, § 17), the applicant had no possibility to claim compensation for the delays incurred in the proceedings (see mutatis mutandis, Tomazic v. Slovenia, no. 38350/02, 13 December 2007, §§ 41-45 and Lesjak v. Slovenia (no. 33946/03, 21 July 2009, §§ 54-55).

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 32238/08

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 32238/08

  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 following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and 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).

• EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 33946/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 32238/08

  Having regard to the 2006 Act as in force at the material time (see by contrast, Žurej v. Slovenia, (dec.), no. 24342/04, 18 October 2007, § 17), the applicant had no possibility to claim compensation for the delays incurred in the proceedings (see mutatis mutandis, Tomazic v. Slovenia, no. 38350/02, 13 December 2007, §§ 41-45 and Lesjak v. Slovenia (no. 33946/03, 21 July 2009, §§ 54-55).
• EGMR, 18.10.2007 - 24342/04

  ZUNIC v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 32238/08

  Having regard to the 2006 Act as in force at the material time (see by contrast, Žurej v. Slovenia, (dec.), no. 24342/04, 18 October 2007, § 17), the applicant had no possibility to claim compensation for the delays incurred in the proceedings (see mutatis mutandis, Tomazic v. Slovenia, no. 38350/02, 13 December 2007, §§ 41-45 and Lesjak v. Slovenia (no. 33946/03, 21 July 2009, §§ 54-55).
• EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 6301/05

  THE ESTATE OF NITSCHKE v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 32238/08

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Bedi v. Slovenia, no. 24901/02, §§ 18-20, 13 April 2006; Schliederer v. Germany, no. 2651/07, §§ 26-31, 21 October 2010; Nitschke v. Sweden, no. 6301/05, §§ 61-66, 27 September 2007; and FPK GROSS, OOO v. Ukraine, no. 18608/05, §§ 20-23, 16 February 2012).
• EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 2651/07

  Rechtssache S. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 32238/08

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Bedi v. Slovenia, no. 24901/02, §§ 18-20, 13 April 2006; Schliederer v. Germany, no. 2651/07, §§ 26-31, 21 October 2010; Nitschke v. Sweden, no. 6301/05, §§ 61-66, 27 September 2007; and FPK GROSS, OOO v. Ukraine, no. 18608/05, §§ 20-23, 16 February 2012).
• EGMR, 13.04.2006 - 24901/02

  BEDI v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 32238/08

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Bedi v. Slovenia, no. 24901/02, §§ 18-20, 13 April 2006; Schliederer v. Germany, no. 2651/07, §§ 26-31, 21 October 2010; Nitschke v. Sweden, no. 6301/05, §§ 61-66, 27 September 2007; and FPK GROSS, OOO v. Ukraine, no. 18608/05, §§ 20-23, 16 February 2012).
• EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 18608/05

  FPK GROSS, OOO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 32238/08

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Bedi v. Slovenia, no. 24901/02, §§ 18-20, 13 April 2006; Schliederer v. Germany, no. 2651/07, §§ 26-31, 21 October 2010; Nitschke v. Sweden, no. 6301/05, §§ 61-66, 27 September 2007; and FPK GROSS, OOO v. Ukraine, no. 18608/05, §§ 20-23, 16 February 2012).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.12.2016 - 23032/02

  LUKENDA AND 263 OTHER CASES AGAINST SLOVENIA

  32238/08.
• EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 34386/10

  BOKAL v. SLOVENIA

  Having regard to the circumstances of the case and its case-law on the subject (see, Fetis d.o.o. v. Slovenia, 75366/01, §§ 15-18, 30 March 2006; Cundric v. Slovenia, 57566/00, §§ 23-31, 30 March 2006; and Jeznik v. Slovenia, 32238/08, §§ 22-25, 20 June 2013) and in the absence of any arguments brought forward by the Government in respect of the above mentioned criteria, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.
• EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 52886/08

  SVARA v. SLOVENIA

  Having regard to the circumstances of the case and its case-law on the subject (see, Fetis d.o.o. v. Slovenia, 75366/01, §§ 15-18, 30 March 2006; Cundric v. Slovenia, 57566/00, §§ 23-31, 30 March 2006; and Jeznik v. Slovenia, 32238/08, §§ 22-25, 20 June 2013), the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.