Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TREIAL v. ESTONIA

  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 (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 48129/99
• EGMR, 03.12.2002 - 48129/99
• EGMR, 02.12.2003 - 48129/99

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2003 - 48129/99

  Consequently, there is no justification for making any award to him under that head (see mutatis mutandis, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 164, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2003 - 48129/99

  The reasonableness of the length of proceedings is to be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, regard being had to the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, in particular the complexity of the case, the applicant's conduct and the conduct of the competent authorities (see, among other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2003 - 48129/99

  The Court recalls that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41, it must be established that that they were actually and necessarily incurred in order to prevent or obtain redress for the matter found to constitute a violation of the Convention and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nielsen and Johnson v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2003 - 48129/99

  Consequently, the Court can only consider the period of seven years and seven months, which have elapsed after 16 April 1996, although it will take into account the stage reached in the proceedings on that date (see, among other authorities, mutatis mutandis, Yagci and Sargin v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, p. 16, § 40).
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 33158/96

  LAINO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2003 - 48129/99

  The Court reiterates however that in cases relating to civil status, what is at stake for the applicant is also a relevant consideration and special diligence is required in view of the possible consequences which the excessive length of proceedings may have, notably on enjoyment of the right to respect for family life (see, for example, Laino v. Italy [GC], no. 33158/96, § 18, ECHR 1999-I).

• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 49806/99

  PRODAN c. MOLDOVA

  On numerous occasions, and absolutely rightly, this Court has stated that applicants should prove the pecuniary damage for which they seek compensation and that they cannot be compensated for damage not actually suffered (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 162-165, ECHR 2000-XI; Treial v. Estonia, no. 48129/99, §§ 67-70, 2 December 2003; Lisiak v. Poland, no. 37443/97, § 52, 5 November 2002; Piechota v. Poland, no. 40330/98, § 49, 5 November 2002; Koral v. Poland, no. 52518/99, § 62, 5 November 2002; Nowicka v. Poland, no. 30218/96, § 82, 3 December 2002 and many, many others).
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 24720/04

  HADZHINIKOLOV v. BULGARIA

  The Court reiterates that a successful litigant may be required to undertake certain procedural steps and to act with a certain diligence in order to recover a judgment debt (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 69, ECHR 2009-...; Treial v. Estonia (dec.), no. 48129/99, 28 November 2000; and Topciov v. Romania (dec.), no. 17369/02, 15 June 2006).
• 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).
• EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 42496/05

  TREIAL 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-....; Treial v. Estonia, no. 48129/99, 2 December 2003; and Saarekallas OÜ v. Estonia, no. 11548/04, 8 November 2007).