Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MISSENJOV v. ESTONIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (struck out of the list) Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - award Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 02.12.1999 - 32082/96

  Überprüfung der Länge eines in Portugal anhängigen Strafverfahrens durch den …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 43276/06

  Preventive remedies in respect of the length of proceedings have also been found to exist, for example, in Switzerland (see Kunz v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 623/02, 21 June 2005) and Portugal (see Tomé Mota v. Portugal (dec.), no. 32082/96, ECHR 1999-IX).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 43276/06

  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, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 43276/06

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 of the Convention 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, 29.01.2009 - 43276/06

  A remedy is therefore effective if it can be used either to expedite a decision by the courts dealing with the case, or to provide the litigant with adequate redress for delays that have already occurred (see Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 99, ECHR 2006-VII, and Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

  CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 43276/06

  The Court has also found that there was an effective remedy available in Poland where a party to the proceedings could complain about an unreasonable delay in the proceedings to a superior court which might instruct the court examining the merits of the case to take certain measures within a fixed time-limit (see Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-V; and Michalak v. Poland (dec.), no. 24549/03, 1 March 2005).
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 24549/03

  MICHALAK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 43276/06

  The Court has also found that there was an effective remedy available in Poland where a party to the proceedings could complain about an unreasonable delay in the proceedings to a superior court which might instruct the court examining the merits of the case to take certain measures within a fixed time-limit (see Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-V; and Michalak v. Poland (dec.), no. 24549/03, 1 March 2005).
• EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 623/02

  KUNZ c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 43276/06

  Preventive remedies in respect of the length of proceedings have also been found to exist, for example, in Switzerland (see Kunz v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 623/02, 21 June 2005) and Portugal (see Tomé Mota v. Portugal (dec.), no. 32082/96, ECHR 1999-IX).

• EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 58600/12

  EBERHARD v. GERMANY

  Sie erkannte das Vorliegen von Konventionsverletzungen insoweit klar an, als ihr die Beschwerde durch den Gerichtshof übermittelt wurde (siehe Artikel 62A Abs. 1 Buchst. b der Verfahrensordnung; vgl. im Hinblick auf dieses Erfordernis auch Missenjov./. Estland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 43276/06, Rdnr. 25, 29. Januar 2009;… und Nelissen./. Niederlande, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 6051/07, Rdnr. 39, 5. April 2011).
• EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 6905/09

  PARFJONOV v. ESTONIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Estonia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; Treial v. Estonia, no. 48129/99, 2 December 2003; Shchiglitsov v. Estonia, no. 35062/03, 18 January 2007; Saarekallas OÜ v. Estonia, no. 11548/04, 8 November 2007; Missenjov v. Estonia, no. 43276/06, 29 January 2009; and Raudsepp v. Estonia, no. 54191/07, 8 November 2011).