Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 40756/06, 41508/07, 50806/07   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2013,33426
EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 40756/06, 41508/07, 50806/07 (https://dejure.org/2013,33426)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26.11.2013 - 40756/06, 41508/07, 50806/07 (https://dejure.org/2013,33426)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26. November 2013 - 40756/06, 41508/07, 50806/07 (https://dejure.org/2013,33426)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,33426) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    VLAD AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 13+6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
    Preliminary objection joined to merits (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) ...

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (110)Neu Zitiert selbst (22)

  • EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75529/01

    Verschleppter Prozess - Mann prozessiert seit 16 Jahren um Entschädigung nach …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 40756/06
    It should therefore be joined to the merits (see Sürmeli v. Germany (dec.), no. 75529/01, 29 April 2004, and McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 75, 10 September 2010).

    64359/01 and others, ECHR 2002-IX; Doran v. Ireland, no. 50389/99, ECHR 2003-X (extracts); Hartman v. the Czech Republic, no. 53341/99, ECHR 2003-VIII; Paulino Tomas v. Portugal (dec.), no. 58698/00, ECHR 2003-VIII; Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, 29 January 2004; Bako v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 60227/00, 15 March 2005; Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-V; Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, ECHR 2005-X; Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, ECHR 2006-VII; Finger, cited above; and Milic v. Montenegro and Serbia, no. 28359/05, 11 December 2012).

  • EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

    SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 40756/06
    Subject to monitoring by the Committee of Ministers, the respondent State remains free to choose the means by which it will discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention, provided that such means are compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court's judgment (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII, and Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 192, ECHR 2004-V).
  • EGMR, 09.05.2003 - 47863/99

    SOC v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 40756/06
    With regard to complaints about the protraction of proceedings provided for by Articles 522 to 529 of the new Code of Civil Procedure in force as of 15 February 2013 (paragraph 73 above), the Court reiterates that an effective remedy must be available both for proceedings that have already ended and for those still pending (Soc v. Croatia, no. 47863/99, § 94, 9 May 2003; Paulino Tomás, cited above; and Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII).
     
  • EGMR, 04.08.2005 - 77517/01

    STOIANOVA ET NEDELCU c. ROUMANIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 40756/06
    Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having regard to its case-law on the subject (see, for instance, Stoianova and Nedelcu v. Romania, nos. 77517/01 and 77722/01, § 26, ECHR 2005-VIII; Georgescu v. Romania, no. 25230/03, §§ 93- 96, 13 May 2008; and Soare v. Romania, no. 72439/01, § 29, 16 June 2009) the Court considers that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.
  • EGMR, 13.05.2008 - 25230/03

    GEORGESCU v. ROMANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 40756/06
    Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having regard to its case-law on the subject (see, for instance, Stoianova and Nedelcu v. Romania, nos. 77517/01 and 77722/01, § 26, ECHR 2005-VIII; Georgescu v. Romania, no. 25230/03, §§ 93- 96, 13 May 2008; and Soare v. Romania, no. 72439/01, § 29, 16 June 2009) the Court considers that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.
  • EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

    MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 40756/06
    With regard to complaints about the protraction of proceedings provided for by Articles 522 to 529 of the new Code of Civil Procedure in force as of 15 February 2013 (paragraph 73 above), the Court reiterates that an effective remedy must be available both for proceedings that have already ended and for those still pending (Soc v. Croatia, no. 47863/99, § 94, 9 May 2003; Paulino Tomás, cited above; and Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII).
  • EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 72439/01

    SOARE c. ROUMANIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 40756/06
    Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having regard to its case-law on the subject (see, for instance, Stoianova and Nedelcu v. Romania, nos. 77517/01 and 77722/01, § 26, ECHR 2005-VIII; Georgescu v. Romania, no. 25230/03, §§ 93- 96, 13 May 2008; and Soare v. Romania, no. 72439/01, § 29, 16 June 2009) the Court considers that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.
  • EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

    PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 40756/06
    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, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

    FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 40756/06
    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, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 50389/99

    DORAN v. IRELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 40756/06
    64359/01 and others, ECHR 2002-IX; Doran v. Ireland, no. 50389/99, ECHR 2003-X (extracts); Hartman v. the Czech Republic, no. 53341/99, ECHR 2003-VIII; Paulino Tomas v. Portugal (dec.), no. 58698/00, ECHR 2003-VIII; Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, 29 January 2004; Bako v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 60227/00, 15 March 2005; Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-V; Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, ECHR 2005-X; Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, ECHR 2006-VII; Finger, cited above; and Milic v. Montenegro and Serbia, no. 28359/05, 11 December 2012).
  • EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 57984/00

    ANDRASIK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  • EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 58698/00

    PAULINO TOMAS contre le PORTUGAL

  • EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

    BAUMANN v. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

    CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  • EGMR, 04.07.2002 - 20862/02

    SLAVICEK contre la CROATIE

  • EGMR, 10.04.2008 - 21071/05

    WASSERMAN v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  • EGMR, 08.10.2002 - 64359/01

    FERNANDEZ-MOLINA GONZALEZ et AUTRES contre l'ESPAGNE

  • EGMR, 15.03.2005 - 60227/00

    BAKO v. SLOVAKIA

  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

    Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  • EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01

    NOGOLICA c. CROATIE

  • EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98

    KARNER c. AUTRICHE

  • EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

    CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

    Toutefois, pour aider l'État défendeur à remplir ses obligations au titre de l'article 46, 1a Cour peut chercher à lui indiquer le type de mesures, individuelles et/ou générales, qu'il pourrait prendre pour mettre un terme à la situation constatée (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Vlad et autres c. Roumanie, nos 40756/06, 41508/07 et 50806/07, § 162, 26 novembre 2013).
  • EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 62157/13

    BECALI ET CIOFLINA c. ROUMANIE

    Elle note que le Gouvernement n'a pas présenté d'arguments pour justifier cette durée, qui doit donc être imputée aux autorités nationales (voir, mutatis mutandis, Vlad et autres c. Roumanie, nos 40756/06 et 2 autres, § 145, 26 novembre 2013).
  • EGMR, 24.07.2018 - 53183/07

    NEGREA ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

    Les articles 998 et 999 du code civil régissant la responsabilité civile délictuelle à l'époque des faits, ainsi que des exemples de jurisprudence sont présentés dans l'affaire Vlad et autres c. Roumanie, (nos 40756/06, 41508/07 et 50806/07, §§ 64, 80-83 et 85, 26 novembre 2013).

    La Cour rappelle ensuite que dans l'affaire Vlad et autres c. Roumanie, (nos 40756/06, 41508/07 et 50806/07, §§ 114-123, 26 novembre 2013), elle a jugé qu'il n'y avait pas en Roumanie de recours effectif pour dénoncer la durée excessive d'une procédure et que l'action en responsabilité civile délictuelle ne représentait pas à l'époque des faits une voie effective pour accélérer la procédure.

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht