Weitere Entscheidungen unten: EGMR, 20.01.2004 | EGMR, 06.06.2012

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 48339/99   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2002,51807
EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 48339/99 (https://dejure.org/2002,51807)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21.05.2002 - 48339/99 (https://dejure.org/2002,51807)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21. Mai 2002 - 48339/99 (https://dejure.org/2002,51807)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2002,51807) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Verfahrensgang

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 48339/99   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2004,38494
EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 48339/99 (https://dejure.org/2004,38494)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20.01.2004 - 48339/99 (https://dejure.org/2004,38494)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20. Januar 2004 - 48339/99 (https://dejure.org/2004,38494)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,38494) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

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

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

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).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

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   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2012,88191
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 (https://dejure.org/2012,88191)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 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 (https://dejure.org/2012,88191)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06. Juni 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 (https://dejure.org/2012,88191)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,88191) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

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
 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

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).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht