Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WURZER v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Wurzer v. Austria

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.09.2003 - 54536/00

  EMSENHUBER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 5335/07

  The Court agrees that there were different sets of proceedings, and the various proceedings are thus to be seen separately (see Emsenhuber v. Austria (dec.), no. 54536/00, 11 September 2003; and Ebmer v. Austria (dec.), no. 28519/05, 4 February 2010).

  Turning to the question as to whether the applicant can claim to be a victim of a violation, the Court reiterates that it held in the case of Emsenhuber v. Austria (dec.), no. 54536/00, 11 September 2003:.

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 5335/07

  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).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 5335/07

  The Court has constantly held that domestic remedies have to be exhausted if they are effective, sufficient and accessible (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, ECHR 2002-VIII).

• EGMR, 25.11.1994 - 12884/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 5335/07

  The Court considered that in such proceedings pecuniary interests of the opposing neighbour could be at stake and therefore found the civil right limb of Article 6 § 1 to be applicable (see Ortenberg v. Austria, judgment of 25 November 1994, Series A no. 295-B, pp. 48-49, § 28).".
• EGMR, 28.01.2010 - 20087/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 5335/07

  However, as the Court held in the cases of Stechauner v. Austria, no. 20087/06, § 34, 28 January 2010, and Puchstein v. Austria, no. 20089/06, § 31, 28 January 2010, such a complaint to the Constitutional Court has a merely declaratory effect and does not have preventive or compensatory effects.
• EGMR, 28.01.2010 - 20089/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 5335/07

  However, as the Court held in the cases of Stechauner v. Austria, no. 20087/06, § 34, 28 January 2010, and Puchstein v. Austria, no. 20089/06, § 31, 28 January 2010, such a complaint to the Constitutional Court has a merely declaratory effect and does not have preventive or compensatory effects.
• EGMR, 07.10.2004 - 8749/02

  RIEBERER AND ENGLEITNER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 5335/07

  In its reasoning the Court noted in particular that the refusal of the approval of the sales contract had had a direct bearing on the applicants" civil rights (see Rieberer and Engleitner v. Austria (dec.), no. 8749/02, 7 October 2004).
• EGMR, 04.02.2010 - 28519/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 5335/07

  The Court agrees that there were different sets of proceedings, and the various proceedings are thus to be seen separately (see Emsenhuber v. Austria (dec.), no. 54536/00, 11 September 2003; and Ebmer v. Austria (dec.), no. 28519/05, 4 February 2010).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.12.2015 - 45369/07

  RAMBAUSKE ET 29 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE L'AUTRICHE

  5335/07.
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 24143/11

  FRANZ MAIER GMBH v. AUSTRIA

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see for example, Wurzer v. Austria, no. 5335/07, §§ 45-50, 6 March 2012, and Hall v. Austria, no. 5455/06, §§ 42-47, 6 March 2012).
• EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 22601/09

  BIRNLEITNER v. AUSTRIA (No. 2)

  The period to be taken into consideration began on 28 December 2004, when the District Authority partly dismissed the applicant's request of allocation of land to her hunting grounds (see Morscher v. Austria, no. 54039/00, § 38, 5 February 2004, and Wurzer v. Austria, no. 5335/07, § 45, 6 March 2012), and ended on 13 October 2008 with the serving of the Administrative Court's decision.
• EGMR, 02.05.2013 - 25498/08

  [ENG]

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that in civil length cases examined under Article 6 § 1, the period to be taken into consideration does not necessarily start when the competent tribunal was seized but may also encompass the prior administrative phase (see, for instance, Rambauske v. Austria, no. 45369/07, § 16, 28 January 2010; Wurzer v. Austria, no. 5335/07, § 45, 6 March 2012; Schouten and Meldrum v. the Netherlands, 9 December 1994, § 62, Series A no. 304; and Paulsen-Medalen and Svensson v. Sweden, 19 February 1998, § 42, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I).
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 24258/07

  [ENG]

  Therefore the proceedings must be seen separately (see, as similar cases, also relating to various sets of proceedings in the context of requests for building permits: Emsenhuber v. Austria (dec.), no. 54536/00, 11 September 2003, Hofbauer v. Austria (dec.), no. 68087/01, 2 September 2004 and Ebmer v. Austria (dec.), no. 28519/05, 4 February 2010; Wurzer v. Austria, no. 5335/07, § 31, 6 March 2012).