Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 36036/04
• EGMR, 07.03.2013 - 36036/04
• EGMR - 36036/04 (anhängig)

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAKEDONSKI v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 2 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Violation of P4-2-2 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 36036/04
• EGMR, 07.03.2013 - 36036/04
• EGMR - 36036/04

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 36036/04

  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 and the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 36036/04

  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, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 36036/04

  A remedy is effective if it prevents the alleged violation or its continuation or provides adequate redress for any breach that has already occurred (ibid., § 158; and Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, ECHR 2002-VIII).

 
• EGMR, 17.07.2003 - 32190/96

  LUORDO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 36036/04

  The Court reiterates that even where a restriction on the individual's freedom of movement was initially warranted, maintaining it automatically over a lengthy period of time may become a disproportionate measure, violating the individual's rights (see, among others, Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, § 121, 23 May 2006; Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, ECHR 2003-IX; Földes and Földesné Hajlik v. Hungary, no. 41463/02, §§ 30-36, ECHR 2006-XII; and Bessenyei v. Hungary, no. 37509/06, §§ 21-24, 21 October 2008).
• EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 37509/06

  BESSENYEI v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 36036/04

  The Court reiterates that even where a restriction on the individual's freedom of movement was initially warranted, maintaining it automatically over a lengthy period of time may become a disproportionate measure, violating the individual's rights (see, among others, Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, § 121, 23 May 2006; Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, ECHR 2003-IX; Földes and Földesné Hajlik v. Hungary, no. 41463/02, §§ 30-36, ECHR 2006-XII; and Bessenyei v. Hungary, no. 37509/06, §§ 21-24, 21 October 2008).
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  BAUMANN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 36036/04

  Any measure restricting that right must be lawful, pursue one of the legitimate aims referred to in the third paragraph of the above-mentioned Convention provision and strike a fair balance between the public interest and the individual's rights (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 61, ECHR 2001-V).