Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PRICE AND LOWE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

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

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 03.09.2002 - 43185/98
• EGMR, 29.07.2003 - 43185/98, 43186/98

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2003 - 43185/98

  As to the applicants' claims for pecuniary loss, the Court recalls that there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicant and the violation of the Convention (see, amongst other authorities, the Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain judgment of 13 June 1994 (Article 50), Series A no. 285-C, pp.
• EGMR, 10.07.1984 - 8990/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2003 - 43185/98

  The Court has held on a number of occasions that a principle of domestic law or practice that the parties to civil proceedings are required to take the initiative with regard to the progress of the proceedings, does not dispense the State from complying with the requirement to deal with cases in a reasonable time (see Buchholz v Germany judgment of 6 May 1981, Series no. 42, p. 16, § 50; Guincho v. Portugal judgment of 10 July 1984, Series A no. 81, p. 14, § 32; Capuano v. Italy, judgment of 25 June 1987, Series A no. 119, p. 11, § 25; Mitchell and Holloway v. the United Kingdom, no. 44808/98, judgment of 17 December 2002).
• EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 44808/98

  MITCHELL AND HOLLOWAY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2003 - 43185/98

  The Court has held on a number of occasions that a principle of domestic law or practice that the parties to civil proceedings are required to take the initiative with regard to the progress of the proceedings, does not dispense the State from complying with the requirement to deal with cases in a reasonable time (see Buchholz v Germany judgment of 6 May 1981, Series no. 42, p. 16, § 50; Guincho v. Portugal judgment of 10 July 1984, Series A no. 81, p. 14, § 32; Capuano v. Italy, judgment of 25 June 1987, Series A no. 119, p. 11, § 25; Mitchell and Holloway v. the United Kingdom, no. 44808/98, judgment of 17 December 2002).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 42341/04

  BHANDARI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  If a State allows proceedings to continue beyond the "reasonable time" prescribed by Article 6 of the Convention without doing anything to advance them, it will be responsible for the resultant delay (see Price and Lowe v. the United Kingdom, nos. 43185/98 and 43186/98, § 23, 29 July 2003, together with further references therein).
• EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 34575/05

  BALCIUNAS AND ZURAVLIOVAS v. LITHUANIA

  If a State lets proceedings continue beyond the "reasonable time" prescribed by Article 6 of the Convention without doing anything to advance them, it will be responsible for the resultant delay (see, Price and Lowe v. the United Kingdom, nos. 43185/98 and 43186/98, § 23, 29 July 2003; Beggs v. the United Kingdom, no. 25133/06, § 239, 6 November 2012).
• EGMR, 08.09.2011 - 7812/04

  SUPERWOOD HOLDINGS PLC AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

  43185/98 and 43186/98, § 23, 29 July 2003 as cited in McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 152, ECHR 2010-...).

• EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 68890/01

  BLAKE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  If a State allows proceedings to continue beyond the "reasonable time" prescribed by Article 6 of the Convention without doing anything to advance them, it will be responsible for the resultant delay (see Price and Lowe v. the United Kingdom, nos. 43185/98 and 43186/98, § 23, 29 July 2003, together with further references therein).
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 13881/02

  KING v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Court finds no clear causal connection has been shown between the claimed pecuniary damage and the violation of the Convention (see e.g. Price and Lowe v. the United Kingdom, nos. 43185/98 and 43186/98, judgment of 29 July 2003, § 32) and makes no award under this head.
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 14399/02

  MASSEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Court finds no clear causal connection between any pecuniary damage and the violation of the Convention (see for example, Price and Lowe v. the United Kingdom, nos. 43185/98 and 43186/98, judgment of 29 July 2003, § 32) and makes no award.
• EGMR, 03.06.2010 - 20441/02

  LELIK v. RUSSIA

  If a State lets proceedings continue beyond the "reasonable time" prescribed by Article 6 of the Convention without doing anything to advance them, it will be responsible for the resultant delay (see Price and Lowe v. the United Kingdom, nos. 43185/98 and 43186/98, § 23, 29 July 2003).
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 30505/03

  WILSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  43185/98 and 43186/98, §§ 26-33, 29 July 2003); Blake v. the United Kingdom, no. 68890/01, §§ 47-50, 26 September 2006; and King v. the United Kingdom, no. 13881/02, § 43-46, 16 November 2004).
• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 5787/06

  HOLMES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  43185/98 and 43186/98, §§ 26-33, 29 July 2003); Blake v. the United Kingdom, no. 68890/01, §§ 47-50, 26 September 2006; and King v. the United Kingdom, no. 13881/02, § 43-46, 16 November 2004).