Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PREZEC v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 6-3-c Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 26103/95

  VAN GEYSEGHEM c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 48185/07

  Bearing in mind that the requirements of paragraph 3 (b) and (c) of Article 6 of the Convention amount to specific elements of the right to a fair trial guaranteed under paragraph 1, the Court will examine all the complaints under both provisions taken together (see, in particular, Van Geyseghem v. Belgium [GC], no. 26103/95, § 27, ECHR 1999-I, and G.B. v. France, no. 44069/98, § 57, ECHR 2001-X).
• EGMR, 20.01.2000 - 46279/99

  STAJCAR v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 48185/07

  The Court has already held that where an applicant had means at his or her disposal to use a remedy which would speed up the proceedings, but failed to use them, a complaint about the length of proceedings is inadmissible under Article 35 § 1 for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and that it had to be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see Sirc v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 44580/98, 16 May 2002, and, mutatis mutandis, Stajcar v. Croatia (dec.), no. 46279/99, 20 January 2000; Basic v. Austria, no. 29800/96, §§ 34-40, ECHR 2001-I and Pallanich v. Austria, no. 30160/96, §§ 27-33, 30 January 2001).
• EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 29800/96

  BASIC c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 48185/07

  The Court has already held that where an applicant had means at his or her disposal to use a remedy which would speed up the proceedings, but failed to use them, a complaint about the length of proceedings is inadmissible under Article 35 § 1 for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and that it had to be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see Sirc v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 44580/98, 16 May 2002, and, mutatis mutandis, Stajcar v. Croatia (dec.), no. 46279/99, 20 January 2000; Basic v. Austria, no. 29800/96, §§ 34-40, ECHR 2001-I and Pallanich v. Austria, no. 30160/96, §§ 27-33, 30 January 2001).

 
• EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 30160/96

  PALLANICH v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 48185/07

  The Court has already held that where an applicant had means at his or her disposal to use a remedy which would speed up the proceedings, but failed to use them, a complaint about the length of proceedings is inadmissible under Article 35 § 1 for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and that it had to be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see Sirc v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 44580/98, 16 May 2002, and, mutatis mutandis, Stajcar v. Croatia (dec.), no. 46279/99, 20 January 2000; Basic v. Austria, no. 29800/96, §§ 34-40, ECHR 2001-I and Pallanich v. Austria, no. 30160/96, §§ 27-33, 30 January 2001).
• EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 44069/98

  G.B. v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 48185/07

  Bearing in mind that the requirements of paragraph 3 (b) and (c) of Article 6 of the Convention amount to specific elements of the right to a fair trial guaranteed under paragraph 1, the Court will examine all the complaints under both provisions taken together (see, in particular, Van Geyseghem v. Belgium [GC], no. 26103/95, § 27, ECHR 1999-I, and G.B. v. France, no. 44069/98, § 57, ECHR 2001-X).
• EGMR, 04.07.2002 - 20862/02

  SLAVICEK contre la CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 48185/07

  The Court reiterates that since 22 March 2002 a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act has been considered an effective remedy in respect of length of proceedings still pending in Croatia (see Slavicek v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20862/02, ECHR 2002-VII).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 48185/07

  The competent national authorities are required under Article 6 § 3 (c) to intervene only if a failure by legal aid counsel to provide effective representation is manifest or sufficiently brought to their attention in some other way (see Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, § 65, and Daud v. Portugal, 21 April 1998, Reports 1998-II, § 38).
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 48185/07

  It thus leaves to the Contracting States the choice of the means of ensuring that it is secured in their judicial systems, the Court's task being only to ascertain whether the method they have chosen is consistent with the requirements of a fair trial (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 38, Series A no. 275, and Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 51, 27 November 2008).
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 48185/07

  However, such a waiver must, if it is to be effective for Convention purposes, be established in an unequivocal manner; it must not run counter to any important public interest (see Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 86, ECHR 2006-...), and it must be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate with its importance (see Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 31, Series A no. 277-A).
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 48185/07

  In this respect, it must be remembered that the Convention is designed to "guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective" and that assigning counsel does not in itself ensure the effectiveness of the assistance he may afford an accused (see Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, § 33).
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02

  PAVLENKO v. RUSSIA

  [1] See my joint concurring opinions with Judge Spielmann appended to the following judgments: Vladimir Romanov v. Russia (no. 41461/02, 24 July 2008); Ilatovskiy v. Russia (no. 6945/04, 9 July 2009); Fakiridou and Schina v. Greece (no. 6789/06, 14 November 2008); Lesjak v. Croatia (no. 25904/06, 18 February 2010); and Prezec v. Croatia (no. 48185/07, 15 October 2009).
• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 42202/07

  SITAROPOULOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE

  We would like to repeat here the partly dissenting opinion of Judges Spielmann and Malinverni (paragraphs 7-9) annexed to the judgment in Prezec v. Croatia (no. 48185/07, 15 October 2009) and reiterated in the partly dissenting opinion of the same judges (paragraph 4) annexed to the judgment in Alfantakis v. Greece (no. 49330/07, 11 February 2010), which refer to the partly dissenting opinion of Judge Bonello annexed to the Grand Chamber judgment in Aquilina v. Malta ([GC], no. 25642/94, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 55555/08

  LELAS v. CROATIA

  [1] See my joint concurring opinions with Judge Spielmann appended to the following judgments: Vladimir Romanov v. Russia (no. 41461/02, 24 July 2008); Ilatovskiy v. Russia (no. 6945/04, 9 July 2009); Fakiridou and Schina v. Greece (no. 6789/06, 14 November 2008); Lesjak v. Croatia (no. 25904/06, 18 February 2010); and Prezec v. Croatia (no. 48185/07, 15 October 2009).

 
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 32540/05

  VRBICA v. CROATIA

  [3] See my joint concurring opinions with Judge Spielmann appended to the following judgments: Vladimir Romanov v. Russia (no. 41461/02, 24 July 2008); Ilatovskiy v. Russia (no. 6945/04, 9 July 2009); Fakiridou and Schina v. Greece (no. 6789/06, 14 November 2008); Lesjak v. Croatia (no. 25904/06, 18 February 2010); and Prezec v. Croatia (no. 48185/07, 15 October 2009).
• EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 49330/07

  ALFANTAKIS c. GRECE

  Dans notre opinion partiellement dissidente relative à l'arrêt Prezec c. Croatie (no 48185/07, 15 octobre 2009), nous avons déjà opiné dans le même sens:.
• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17588/08

  VOGIATZIS ET AUTRES c. GRECE

  [1] Voir nos opinions concordantes dans les affaires: Vladimir Romanov c. Russie (n°. 41461/02, 24 juillet 2008); Ilatovskiy c. Russie (n°. 6945/04, 9 juillet 2009); Fakiridou et Schina c. Grèce (n°. 6789/06, 14 novembre 2008); Lesjak c. Croatie (n°. 25904/06, 18 février 2010); Prezec c. Croatie (n°. 48185/07, 15 octobre 2009; et Pavlenko c. Russie (n°. 42371/02, 1 avril 2010).
• EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 37024/02

  SEVASTYANOV v. RUSSIA

  [1] See for example our joint concurring opinions appended to the following judgments: Vladimir Romanov v. Russia (no. 41461/02, 24 July 2008); Ilatovskiy v. Russia (no. 6945/04, 9 July 2009); Fakiridou and Schina v. Greece (no. 6789/06, 14 November 2008); Lesjak v. Croatia (no. 25904/06, 18 February 2010); and Prezec v. Croatia (no. 48185/07, 15 October 2009).
• EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 45753/08

  VAVOULIS c. GRÈCE

  Compte tenu des considérations ci-dessus, la Cour estime que la durée totale de la procédure, même si elle semble à première vue considérable, n'a pas méconnu en l'espèce l'exigence du « délai raisonnable'(voir, mutatis mutandis, Posedel-Jelinovic c. Croatie, no 35915/02, §§ 26-28, 24 novembre 2005 ; Prezec c. Croatie, no 48185/07, § 41, 15 octobre 2009 et Koscak c. Croatie (déc.), no 47814/08, 4 novembre 2010).
• EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 33780/04

  KONONENKO v. RUSSIA

  [1] See our joint concurring opinions appended to the following judgments: Vladimir Romanov v. Russia (no. 41461/02, 24 July 2008); Ilatovskiy v. Russia (no. 6945/04, 9 July 2009); Fakiridou and Schina v. Greece (no. 6789/06, 14 November 2008); Lesjak v. Croatia (no. 25904/06, 18 February 2010); and Prezec v. Croatia (no. 48185/07, 15 October 2009).