Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GURMA v. ALBANIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GURMA v. ALBANIA

  Art. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 50249/13

  Rn. 19 The general principles concerning the length of proceedings have been summarised in Frydlender v. France ([GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 39654/07

  PODRUGINA AND YEDINOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 50249/13

  It therefore did not contradict the ad personam aspect of the principle of respect for the res judicata effect of judgments (compare Podrugina and Yedinov. v. Russia (dec.), no. 39654/07, 17 February 2009; Tantilovi v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 39351/05, § 36, 13 January 2015; and Guriţanu v. Moldova (dec.) [Committee], no. 75732/12, § 21, 8 November 2022).
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 39351/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 50249/13

  It therefore did not contradict the ad personam aspect of the principle of respect for the res judicata effect of judgments (compare Podrugina and Yedinov. v. Russia (dec.), no. 39654/07, 17 February 2009; Tantilovi v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 39351/05, § 36, 13 January 2015; and Guriţanu v. Moldova (dec.) [Committee], no. 75732/12, § 21, 8 November 2022).

• EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 75732/12

  GURITANU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 50249/13

  It therefore did not contradict the ad personam aspect of the principle of respect for the res judicata effect of judgments (compare Podrugina and Yedinov. v. Russia (dec.), no. 39654/07, 17 February 2009; Tantilovi v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 39351/05, § 36, 13 January 2015; and Guriţanu v. Moldova (dec.) [Committee], no. 75732/12, § 21, 8 November 2022).
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 27753/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 50249/13

  Having regard to the latter and the Court's case-law (see, for example, L.Z. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 27753/06, 27 September 2011, and Lyszczyna v. Germany (dec.), no. 34863/04, 4 January 2008), the Court considers that the overall length of eight years, ten months and nineteen days before four levels of jurisdiction, and at six instances, did not exceed what could be considered reasonable in the circumstances (compare Ekholm v Finland (dec.), no. 5952/03, 10 July 2007 and Steiner v. Austria (dec.), no. 32637/96, 22 November 2001).
• EGMR, 04.01.2008 - 34863/04

  W. L. gegen Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 50249/13

  Having regard to the latter and the Court's case-law (see, for example, L.Z. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 27753/06, 27 September 2011, and Lyszczyna v. Germany (dec.), no. 34863/04, 4 January 2008), the Court considers that the overall length of eight years, ten months and nineteen days before four levels of jurisdiction, and at six instances, did not exceed what could be considered reasonable in the circumstances (compare Ekholm v Finland (dec.), no. 5952/03, 10 July 2007 and Steiner v. Austria (dec.), no. 32637/96, 22 November 2001).
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 17338/05

  LJUBICIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 50249/13

  Rn. 25 As to the Article 13 complaint, the Court notes that it is inextricably linked to the one examined above and must therefore likewise be declared inadmissible (see Ljubičić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 17338/05, 10 May 2007).
• EGMR, 30.11.2006 - 33578/02

  SELIGA v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 50249/13

  Due to a remittal, decisions were rendered on six instances (compare Šeliga v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 33578/02, 30 November 2006).
• EGMR, 22.11.2001 - 32637/96

  STEINER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 50249/13

  Having regard to the latter and the Court's case-law (see, for example, L.Z. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 27753/06, 27 September 2011, and Lyszczyna v. Germany (dec.), no. 34863/04, 4 January 2008), the Court considers that the overall length of eight years, ten months and nineteen days before four levels of jurisdiction, and at six instances, did not exceed what could be considered reasonable in the circumstances (compare Ekholm v Finland (dec.), no. 5952/03, 10 July 2007 and Steiner v. Austria (dec.), no. 32637/96, 22 November 2001).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.03.2025 - 47858/17

  DUHANXHIU v. ALBANIA

  It therefore did not contradict the ad personam aspect of the principle of respect for the res judicata effect of judgments (compare Podrugina and Yedinov. v. Russia (dec.), no. 39654/07, 17 February 2009; Guriţanu v. Moldova (dec.) [Committee], no. 75732/12, § 21, 8 November 2022; and Gurma v. Albania (dec.) [Committee], no. 50249/13, § 14, 28 November 2022).