Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×
Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 24.08.2004

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 52690/99   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2005,50453
EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 52690/99 (https://dejure.org/2005,50453)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11.10.2005 - 52690/99 (https://dejure.org/2005,50453)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11. Oktober 2005 - 52690/99 (https://dejure.org/2005,50453)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,50453) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    MAJEWSKI v. POLAND

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

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 ... (335)Zitiert selbst (6)

  • EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 24549/03

    MICHALAK v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 52690/99
    For a more detailed rendition of the relevant domestic legal provisions see Michalak v. Poland (dec.), no. 24549/03, §§ 12-23, to be published in ECHR 2005-... - also available on the Court's Internet site (http://[email protected]).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96
    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 52690/99
    The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII and Humen v. Poland [GC], no. 26614/95, § 60, 15 October 1999).
  • EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

    CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 52690/99
    In particular, it considered that it was capable both of preventing the alleged violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time or its continuation, and of providing adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred (see Charzyński v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 36-42).
  • EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 67299/01

    DUBJAKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 52690/99
    However, it took into account the state of the proceedings at that time and found a violation of the applicant's right to a hearing without unjustified delay (see Dubjakova v. Slovakia, (dec), no 67299/01, 19 October 2004).
  • EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 45656/99

    CATALDO v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 52690/99
    Only when these conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude examination of an application (see Cataldo v. Italy (dec.), no. 45656/99, 3 June 2004, with further references).
  • EGMR, 15.03.2005 - 60227/00

    BAKO v. SLOVAKIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 52690/99
    Nevertheless, the examination covered all stages of the domestic proceedings (see Bako v Slovakia, (dec), no 60227/00, 15 March 2005).
  • EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 40387/06

    KRAWCZAK v. POLAND

    The Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention as regards the guarantees of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Kusmierek v Poland, no. 10675/02, judgment of 21 September 2004; and Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, judgment of 13 July 2004) and the requirement of an effective remedy capable of providing appropriate redress for the damage resulting from the breach of this right (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-...; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006-...).

    Furthermore, the Court considers that, in dismissing the applicant's complaint that the proceedings in his case had exceeded a reasonable time, the Court of Appeal failed to apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in the Court's case-law (see Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, § 36, 11 October 2005).

    The Court has already indicated on a great number of occasions that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case taken as a whole and in this connection the Court's approach consists in examining the overall length of the proceedings and in covering all stages of the proceedings (see Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, § 34-35, 11 October 2005).

  • EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 72287/10

    RUTKOWSKI AND OTHERS v. POLAND

    Contrary to the Court's established case-law on the assessment of the reasonableness of the length of proceedings (see, among many other examples, Kudla, cited above, § 119-124; Humen v. Poland [GC], no. 26614/95, §§ 58-60, 15 October 1999; Turczanik v. Poland, no. 38064/97, §§ 38-39, ECHR 2005-VI; Beller v. Poland, no. 51837/99, § 67-71, 1 February 2005; Koss v. Poland, no. 52495/99, §§ 28 and 33, 28 March 2006; and, in particular, Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, § 35, 11 October 2005), the courts did not examine the overall length of the proceedings but only selected parts of them.
  • EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 21695/05

    TUR v. POLAND

    The Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention as regards the guarantees of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Kusmierek v Poland, no. 10675/02, judgment of 21 September 2004; Zynger v. Poland, no. 66096/01, judgment of 13 July 2004) and the requirement of an effective remedy capable of providing appropriate redress for the damage resulting from the breach of this right (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-...; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006-...).

    The Court's approach consists in examining the overall length of proceedings and in covering all stages of the proceedings (see Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, § 34-35, 11 October 2005).

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 24.08.2004 - 52690/99   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2004,43292
EGMR, 24.08.2004 - 52690/99 (https://dejure.org/2004,43292)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24.08.2004 - 52690/99 (https://dejure.org/2004,43292)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24. August 2004 - 52690/99 (https://dejure.org/2004,43292)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,43292) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

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 ... (0)Zitiert selbst (2)

  • EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74
    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.08.2004 - 52690/99
    The Court firstly recalls that, that the conduct of the defence is essentially a matter between the defendant and his counsel, and, as such, cannot, other than in special circumstances, incur the State's liability under the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, the Artico v. Italy judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 18, § 36 and Tuzinski v. Poland (dec), no. 40140/98, 30 March 1999).
  • EGMR, 30.03.1999 - 40140/98

    TUZINSKI v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.08.2004 - 52690/99
    The Court firstly recalls that, that the conduct of the defence is essentially a matter between the defendant and his counsel, and, as such, cannot, other than in special circumstances, incur the State's liability under the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, the Artico v. Italy judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 18, § 36 and Tuzinski v. Poland (dec), no. 40140/98, 30 March 1999).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht