Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 45289/99 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BRUNNTHALER v. AUSTRIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 28.02.2002 - 45289/99
- EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 45289/99
- EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 45289/99
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 08.12.1999 - 28541/95
PELLEGRIN v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 45289/99
Referring to the findings of the Pellegrin v. France judgment ([GC], no. 28541/95, § 66, ECHR 1999-VIII) the Government therefore disputed that the applicant could rely on a "civil right" within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention.The Court finally does not discern any fresh evidence capable of persuading it to reconsider the ruling it gave in its decision of 16 June 2005 that the duties and responsibilities of a chimney sweeper under Austrian law were not such as to exclude the dispute at issue from the scope of Article 6 § 1. In particular, in its admissibility decision the Court considered the duty of chimney sweepers to examine buildings as to their conformity with fire protection legislation, to inform operators of heating facilities about relevant legislation and, in case of imminent danger, to report the matter to the competent authority, did not "typify the specific activities of the public service... as the depository of public authority responsible for protecting the general interests of the State or other public authorities" (see Pellegrin v. France [GC], no. 28541/95, § 66, ECHR 1999).
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96
FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 45289/99
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).
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 53911/00, 45289/99, 2881/04, 17912/05, 69162/01, 12555/03 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ACHLEITNER ET 5 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE L'AUTRICHE
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ACHLEITNER AND 5 OTHER CASES AGAINSG AUSTRIA
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 53911/00
- EGMR, 23.10.2003 - 53911/00
- EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 53911/00, 45289/99, 2881/04, 17912/05, 69162/01, 12555/03
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 45289/99 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BRUNNTHALER v. AUSTRIA
Art. 6 MRK
Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 28.02.2002 - 45289/99
- EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 45289/99
- EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 45289/99
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (1)
- EGMR, 08.12.1999 - 28541/95
PELLEGRIN v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 45289/99
As regards the applicability of Article 6 to the proceedings at issue, the Government referred to the Pellegrin v. France judgment ([GC], no.28541/95, §§ 64-71, ECHR 1999-VIII).
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 28.02.2002 - 45289/99 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BRUNNTHALER v. AUSTRIA
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 28.02.2002 - 45289/99
- EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 45289/99
- EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 45289/99
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (1)
- EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12235/86
ZUMTOBEL v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2002 - 45289/99
However, the Court observes that the scope of the Administrative Court's review has been considered as being sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention in previous applications unless it declines jurisdiction (see for example Zumtobel v. Austria judgment of 12 September 1993, Series A no. 268-A, p. 13-14, §§ 31-32, Müller and Others v. Austria, no. 26507/95, decision of 23.11.99).