Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EZEL TOSUN v. TURKEY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 No separate issue under P1-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 07.10.2004 - 33379/02
• EGMR, 10.01.2006 - 33379/02

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2006 - 33379/02

  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 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, 10.07.2003 - 53341/99

  Rechtssache H. gegen TSCHECHISCHE REPUBLIK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2006 - 33379/02

  Accordingly, the Court concludes that there was no appropriate, effective remedy which the applicant should have exercised for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Hartman v. the Czech Republic, no.53341/99, § 69, 3 December 2003).
• EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 29279/95

  SAHINER v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2006 - 33379/02

  It must nevertheless take account of the state of the proceedings at that time (see Şahiner v. Turkey, no. 29279/95, § 21, ECHR 2001 IX).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 34986/05

  SENYÜREK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  However, having regard to its finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1 (see paragraph 22 above), the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the merits of these complaints separately (Ezel Tosun v. Turkey, no. 33379/02, § 28, 10 January 2006; and Karatas and Yıldız and Others v. Turkey, cited above).
• EGMR, 30.04.2019 - 55882/07

  EZER ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Sur ce point, la Cour rappelle néanmoins qu'en principe la durée d'une procédure relative au droit de propriété ne soulève pas, au regard du droit au respect des biens, de question distincte de celle du droit à un procès dans un délai raisonnable (voir, par exemple, Zanghì c. Italie, 19 février 1991, §§ 22-23, série A no 194-C, Ezel Tosun c. Turquie, no 33379/02, §§ 25-28, 10 janvier 2006 concernant un contentieux du cadastre ayant durée plus de trente-deux ans et étant toujours pendante à la date de l'arrêt, Döndü Bilgiç c. Turquie, no 43948/02, §§ 18-19, 2 mars 2010 concernant une procédure en contestation du plan cadastral d'une durée d'environ quarante-neuf ans, ou encore, Özgen et autres c. Turquie, no 28925/03, §§ 39-42, 8 avril 2008).
• EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 19441/04

  BIÇER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present application (see Ezel Tosun v. Turkey, no. 33379/02, 10 January 2006).
• EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 37252/05

  KALGI v. TURKEY

  However, having regard to its finding under Article 6 § 1 (see paragraph 25 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately whether, in this case, there has also been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Ezel Tosun v. Turkey, no. 33379/02, § 28, 10 January 2006).
• EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 287/03

  ÇENGELLI AND ERYILMAZ v. TURKEY

  The Court reiterates that it has already examined and rejected, in previous cases, similar objections of the Government as regards the alleged incompatibility ratione temporis (see Sahiner v. Turkey, no. 29279/95, § 21, ECHR 2001-IX; Ezel Tosun v. Turkey, no. 33379/02, § 16, 10 January 2006).