Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KLUG v. AUSTRIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.12.1999 - 38952/97

  BOUILLY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33928/05

  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 may involve an increase in an applicant's costs (see Bouilly v. France, no. 38952/97, § 33, 7 December 1999).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33928/05

  Only when those two conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude examination of an application (see Riepl v. Austria, no. 37040/02, § 32, 3 February 2005; Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 32, §§ 69 et seq.; Jensen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X; and Scordino v. Italy (no.1)(dec.), no. 36813/97, ECHR 2003-IV).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33928/05

  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, 30.10.1991 - 11796/85

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33928/05

  Consequently, the period to be taken into consideration began on 20 December 1984, when the applicants" predecessors opposed the provisional transfer of land (see Prischl v. Austria, no. 2881/04, § 29, 26 April 2007; Walder v. Austria, no. 33915/96, § 28, 30 January 2001; and Wiesinger v. Austria, 30 October 1991, § 51, Series A no. 213).
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 19.07.2007 - 15/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33928/05

  15/04/2009.
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 74159/01

  EGGER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33928/05

  As to the question whether the applicants have exhausted domestic remedies, the Court reiterates that a request for transfer of jurisdiction under Section 73 of the General Administrative Procedure Act (Devolutions-antrag) constitutes, in principle, an effective remedy which has to be used in respect of complaints about the length of administrative proceedings (see Egger v. Austria (dec.), no. 74159/01, 9 October 2003).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 14206/02

  KERN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33928/05

  In the Court's view, a detailed examination as to whether the applicants, or their predecessors, could have made more efficient use of the remedy by using it at other stages of the proceedings, would overstretch the duties incumbent on an applicant pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Kern v. Austria, no. 14206/02, § 49, 24 February 2005, and, mutatis mutandis, Wohlmeyer Bau GmbH v. Austria, no. 20077/02, § 45, 8 July 2004).
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 20077/02

  WOHLMEYER BAU GMBH v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33928/05

  In the Court's view, a detailed examination as to whether the applicants, or their predecessors, could have made more efficient use of the remedy by using it at other stages of the proceedings, would overstretch the duties incumbent on an applicant pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Kern v. Austria, no. 14206/02, § 49, 24 February 2005, and, mutatis mutandis, Wohlmeyer Bau GmbH v. Austria, no. 20077/02, § 45, 8 July 2004).
• EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 33915/96

  WALDER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33928/05

  Consequently, the period to be taken into consideration began on 20 December 1984, when the applicants" predecessors opposed the provisional transfer of land (see Prischl v. Austria, no. 2881/04, § 29, 26 April 2007; Walder v. Austria, no. 33915/96, § 28, 30 January 2001; and Wiesinger v. Austria, 30 October 1991, § 51, Series A no. 213).
• EGMR, 03.02.2005 - 37040/02

  RIEPL v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33928/05

  Only when those two conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude examination of an application (see Riepl v. Austria, no. 37040/02, § 32, 3 February 2005; Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 32, §§ 69 et seq.; Jensen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X; and Scordino v. Italy (no.1)(dec.), no. 36813/97, ECHR 2003-IV).
• EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 2884/04

  ORTNER v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 2881/04

  PRISCHL v. AUSTRIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.12.2015 - 45369/07

  RAMBAUSKE ET 29 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE L'AUTRICHE

  33928/05.
• EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 45322/08

  SEIDL AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA

  The Court has already found that a detailed examination as to whether applicants could have made more efficient use of the request for transfer of jurisdiction pursuant to section 73 of the General Administrative Procedure Act, which is in principle an effective remedy, would overstretch the duties incumbent on an applicant pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Kern v. Austria, no. 14206/02, § 49, 24 February 2005; Klug v. Austria, no. 33928/05, § 31, 15 January 2009).
• EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 16476/11

  RUIZ-VILLAR RUIZ c. ESPAGNE

  The Court, while acknowledging the complexity of proceedings such as the present ones, has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising similar issues (see, in particular, Walder v. Austria, no. 33915/96, § 28, 30 January 2001, and Klug v. Austria, no. 33928/05, § 37, 15 January 2009, both relating to land consolidation proceedings which took twenty-two years and twenty years respectively).
• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 6379/08

  PFEIFENBERGER v. AUSTRIA

  The Court has already held in similar cases that a detailed examination as to whether the applicants could have made more efficient use of that remedy by using it at other stages of the proceedings, would overstretch the duties incumbent on applicants pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Kern v. Austria, no. 14206/02, § 49, 24 February 2005 and Klug v. Austria, no. 33928/05, § 31, 15 January 2009, both concerning land consolidation proceedings during which the applicants had successfully made use of the request for transfer of jurisdiction once or twice, respectively, and the Government had argued that, in addition, they should have done so at other stages of the proceedings).
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 41113/08

  [ENG]

  However the Court has already held in similar cases that a detailed examination as to whether the applicants could have made more efficient use of that remedy by using it at other stages of the proceedings, would overstretch the duties incumbent on applicants pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Kern v. Austria, no. 14206/02, § 49, 24 February 2005 and Klug v. Austria, no. 33928/05, § 31, 15 January 2009, both concerning land consolidation proceedings during which the applicants had successfully made use of the request for transfer of jurisdiction once or twice, respectively, and the Government had argued that, in addition, they should have done so at other stages of the proceedings).