Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LEHTINEN v. FINLAND (No. 2)

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 41585/98
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 41585/98

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 41585/98

  The scope of the Contracting States" obligations under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint; however, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI, Kangasluoma v. Finland, no. 48339/99, § 46, 20 January 2004, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 74-79, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 41585/98

  "Charge", for the purposes of Article 6 § 1, may be defined as "the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence", a definition that also corresponds to the test of whether "the situation of the [suspect] has been substantially affected" (see Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 33, § 73).
• EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 48339/99

  KANGASLUOMA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 41585/98

  The scope of the Contracting States" obligations under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint; however, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI, Kangasluoma v. Finland, no. 48339/99, § 46, 20 January 2004, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 74-79, ECHR 2006-...).

• EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 39105/05

  JAANTI v. FINLAND

  Furthermore, the Court reiterates that under Article 41 of the Convention no awards are made in respect of the time or work put into an application by the applicant as this cannot be regarded as monetary costs actually incurred by him or her (see, Brincat v. Italy, 26 November 1992, § 29, Series A no. 249-A, Pétur Thór Sigurðsson v. Iceland, no. 39731/98, §§ 52 and 54, ECHR 2003-IV, Lehtinen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 41585/98, § 57, 8 June 2006).
• EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 63679/00

  SZULC v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  It follows that, in accordance with its case-law, even if the applicant had indeed spent time working on the case, the Court cannot make an award under this head, as this time would not represent monetary costs actually incurred by him (see Buzescu v. Romania, no. 61302/00, § 114, 24 May 2005, and Lehtinen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 41585/98, § 57, 8 June 2006).