Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HALL v. AUSTRIA

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

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Hall v. Austria

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

  König ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 5455/06

  The period to be taken into consideration began on 15 December 1997, when the DAA rejected the applicant's request for a declaration that no authoritative permit by the agricultural authorities was necessary for the transfer of the grazing and hut rights, as it was at that moment that a "dispute" arose within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, § 98, Series A no. 27 and Morscher v. Austria, no. 54039/00, § 38, 5 February 2004).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 5455/06

  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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 05.02.2004 - 54039/00

  MORSCHER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 5455/06

  The period to be taken into consideration began on 15 December 1997, when the DAA rejected the applicant's request for a declaration that no authoritative permit by the agricultural authorities was necessary for the transfer of the grazing and hut rights, as it was at that moment that a "dispute" arose within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, § 98, Series A no. 27 and Morscher v. Austria, no. 54039/00, § 38, 5 February 2004).

• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 74159/01

  EGGER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 5455/06

  The Court reiterates that a request for transfer of jurisdiction under Section 73 of the General Administrative Procedure Act (Devolutions-antrag) constitutes, in principle, an effective remedy which has to be used in respect of complaints about the length of administrative proceedings (see Egge v. Austria (dec.), no. 74159/01, 9 October 2003).
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 20077/02

  WOHLMEYER BAU GMBH v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 5455/06

  In the Court's view, a detailed examination of whether the applicant could have made more efficient use of the remedy by using it at other stages of the proceedings, would overstretch the duties incumbent on an applicant pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Kern v. Austria, no. 14206/02, § 49, 24 February 2005, and, mutatis mutandis, Wohlmeyer Bau GmbH v. Austria, no. 20077/02, § 45, 8 July 2004).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 14206/02

  KERN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 5455/06

  In the Court's view, a detailed examination of whether the applicant could have made more efficient use of the remedy by using it at other stages of the proceedings, would overstretch the duties incumbent on an applicant pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Kern v. Austria, no. 14206/02, § 49, 24 February 2005, and, mutatis mutandis, Wohlmeyer Bau GmbH v. Austria, no. 20077/02, § 45, 8 July 2004).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.12.2015 - 45369/07

  RAMBAUSKE ET 29 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE L'AUTRICHE

  5455/06.
• EGMR, 28.02.2017 - 907/13

  AUERBACH v. AUSTRIA

  The Court observes in the first place that a request pursuant to Article 132 of the Federal Constitution as well as a request pursuant to section 311 of the FTR, as in force at the time of the events and which were not fundamentally different from section 73 of the General Administrative Procedure Act (Allgemeines Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz), constitute in principle effective remedies as regards a complaint about the length of proceedings and have to be used in respect of such complaints before administrative authorities (see Egger v. Austria (dec.) no. 74159/01, 9 October 2003, and Hall v. Austria, no. 5455/06, § 38, 6 March 2012).
• 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, 07.02.2017 - 36871/11

  GH IMMOBILIENMAKLER GMBH v. AUSTRIA

  The applicant company's complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 1 September 2006, when the Vienna Municipality prohibited the construction of the buildings (see paragraph 7 above; and see Hall v. Austria, no. 5455/06, § 42, 6 March 2012, with further references), and ended on 7 April 2011, when the final decision of the Administrative Court was served on the applicant company's counsel (see paragraph 14 above).
• EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 20527/13

  DÖLLER v. AUSTRIA

  The applicants' complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 6 October 2005, when the Mayor dismissed the applicants' request for an exemption from the obligation to connect to the public sewage (see paragraph 8 above; see Hall v. Austria, no. 5455/06, § 42, 6 March 2012, with further references), and ended on 11 September 2012, when the final decision of the Administrative Court was served on the applicants' counsel (see paragraph 22 above).