Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 48339/99 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KANGASLUOMA v. FINLAND
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 13 MRK
Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 48339/99
- EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 48339/99
- EGMR, 06.06.2012 - 48339/99
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 48339/99 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KANGASLUOMA v. FINLAND
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 48339/99
- EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 48339/99
- EGMR, 06.06.2012 - 48339/99
Wird zitiert von ... (7) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 48339/99
The scope of the Contracting States" obligations under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint; however, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI). - EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77
VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 48339/99
Although no single remedy may itself entirely satisfy the requirements of Article 13, the aggregate of remedies provided for under domestic law may do so (see e.g. the X. v United Kingdom judgment of 5 November 1981, Series A no. 46, p. 26, § 60; the van Droogenbroeck v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, p. 32, § 56; and the Leander v. Sweden judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, §§ 77 and 81-82). - EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81
LEANDER c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 48339/99
Although no single remedy may itself entirely satisfy the requirements of Article 13, the aggregate of remedies provided for under domestic law may do so (see e.g. the X. v United Kingdom judgment of 5 November 1981, Series A no. 46, p. 26, § 60; the van Droogenbroeck v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, p. 32, § 56; and the Leander v. Sweden judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, §§ 77 and 81-82). - EGMR, 05.11.1981 - 7215/75
X v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 48339/99
Although no single remedy may itself entirely satisfy the requirements of Article 13, the aggregate of remedies provided for under domestic law may do so (see e.g. the X. v United Kingdom judgment of 5 November 1981, Series A no. 46, p. 26, § 60; the van Droogenbroeck v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, p. 32, § 56; and the Leander v. Sweden judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, §§ 77 and 81-82).
- EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 28631/05
MANNINEN v. FINLAND
The scope of the Contracting States" obligations under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint; however, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI, Kangasluoma v. Finland, no. 48339/99, § 46, 20 January 2004, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 74-79, ECHR 2006-...).Consequently, since the Government have not shown that any form of relief - either preventive or compensatory - was available to the applicant, there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in that the applicant had no domestic remedy whereby he could enforce his right to a hearing within a reasonable time as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Kangasluoma v. Finland, no. 48339/99, §§ 48-49, 20 January 2004).
- EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 36044/09
HORVATIC v. CROATIA
The Court must, however, determine whether the proceedings considered as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see G.B. v. France, no. 44069/98, § 59, ECHR 2001-X; Kangasluoma v. Finland (dec.), no. 48339/99, 21 May 2002; and Laska and Lika v. Albania, nos. - EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 10391/06
NEVALA v. FINLAND
Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases against Finland (see, for example, Kangasluoma v. Finland, no. 48339/99, 20 January 2004 and Lehtonen v. Finland, no. 11704/03, 13 June 2006).
- EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 41585/98
LEHTINEN v. FINLAND (No. 2)
The scope of the Contracting States" obligations under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint; however, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI, Kangasluoma v. Finland, no. 48339/99, § 46, 20 January 2004, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 74-79, ECHR 2006-...). - EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 45981/08
SEPPALA v. FINLAND
Consequently, as the Government have not shown that any form of relief - either preventive or compensatory - was available for the applicant, the Government's argument of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must be rejected (see, mutatis mutandis, Kangasluoma v. Finland, no. 48339/99, §§ 48-49, 20 January 2004). - EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 32681/06
MANNER v. FINLAND
Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases against Finland (see, for example, Kangasluoma v. Finland, no. 48339/99, 20 January 2004 and Lehtonen v. Finland, no. 11704/03, 13 June 2006). - EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 302/05
NORKUNAS v. LITHUANIA
The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present application (see Mattoccia v. Italy, no. 23969/94, §§ 75-81, ECHR 2000-IX, and Kangasluoma v. Finland, no. 48339/99, §§ 29-36, 20 January 2004).
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 06.06.2012 - 48339/99, 23667/06, 2511/02, 24732/06, 4799/03, 36288/97, 33173/05, 39509/08, 39105/05, 64436/01, 5635/09, 17889/07, 22175/06, 34147/96, 41585/98, 43160/98, 45618/04, 11704/03, 28631/05, 77138/01, 10615/03, 13102/03, 16385/07, 45952/08, 38158/07, 26189/06 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KANGASLUOMA ET 34 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA FINLANDE
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
KANGASLUOMA AND 34 OTHER CASES AGAINST FINLAND
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 48339/99
- EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 48339/99
- EGMR, 06.06.2012 - 48339/99, 23667/06, 2511/02, 24732/06, 4799/03, 36288/97, 33173/05, 39509/08, 39105/05, 64436/01, 5635/09, 17889/07, 22175/06, 34147/96, 41585/98, 43160/98, 45618/04, 11704/03, 28631/05, 77138/01, 10615/03, 13102/03, 16385/07, 45952/08, 38158/07, 26189/06
Wird zitiert von ... (2)
- EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 10391/06
NEVALA v. FINLAND
Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases against Finland (see, for example, Kangasluoma v. Finland, no. 48339/99, 20 January 2004 and Lehtonen v. Finland, no. 11704/03, 13 June 2006). - EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 32681/06
MANNER v. FINLAND
Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases against Finland (see, for example, Kangasluoma v. Finland, no. 48339/99, 20 January 2004 and Lehtonen v. Finland, no. 11704/03, 13 June 2006).