Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KRUMPEL AND KRUMPELOVA v. SLOVAKIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 56195/00

  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, 30.10.2012 - 57375/08

  Abtreibungsverbot in Polen: Lebensschützer und der "Fall Agata"

  Where there is a choice of remedies, the exhaustion requirement must be applied to reflect the practical realities of the applicant's position so as to ensure the effective protection of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Wiktorko v. Poland, no. 14612/02, § 36, 31 March 2009, and Krumpel and Krumpelová v. Slovakia, no. 56195/00, § 43, 5 July 2005).
• EGMR, 12.04.2016 - 64602/12

  R.B. v. HUNGARY

  Where there is a choice of remedies open to an applicant, Article 35 must be applied to reflect the practical realities of the applicant's position in order to ensure the effective protection of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention (see, inter alia, Hilal v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45276/99, 8 February 2000, and Krumpel and Krumpelova v. Slovakia, no. 56195/00, § 43, 5 July 2005).
• EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 48130/99

  IVAN VASILEV v. BULGARIA

  Where there is a choice of remedies, the exhaustion requirement must be applied to reflect the practical realities of the applicant's position, so as to ensure the effective protection of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention (see Allgemeine Gold- und Silberscheideanstalt A.G. v. the United Kingdom, no. 9118/80, Commission decision of 9 March 1983, Decisions and Reports (DR) 32, p. 165; and, more recently, Krumpel and Krumpelová v. Slovakia, no. 56195/00, § 43, 5 July 2005).

 
• EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 25282/06

  DOLENEC v. CROATIA

  According to the Court's established case-law, where an applicant has a choice of domestic remedies, it is sufficient for the purposes of the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies that that applicant make use of the remedy which is not unreasonable and which is capable of providing redress for the substance of his or her Convention complaints (see, inter alia, Hilal v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45276/99, 8 February 2000, and Krumpel and Krumpelová v. Slovakia, no. 56195/00, § 43, 5 July 2005).
• EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 14612/02

  WIKTORKO v. POLAND

  Where there is a choice of remedies, the exhaustion requirement must be applied to reflect the practical realities of the applicant's position, so as to ensure the effective protection of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention (see Allgemeine Gold-und Silberscheideanstalt A.G. v. the United Kingdom, no. 9118/80, Commission decision of 9 March 1983, Decisions and Reports (DR) 32, p. 165, and, more recently, Krumpel and Krumpelová v. Slovakia, no. 56195/00, § 43, 5 July 2005).
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 15529/12

  BALÁZS v. HUNGARY

  Where there is a choice of remedies open to an applicant, Article 35 must be applied to reflect the practical realities of the applicant's position in order to ensure the effective protection of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention (see, inter alia, Hilal v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45276/99, 8 February 2000; and Krumpel and Krumpelova v. Slovakia, no. 56195/00, § 43, 5 July 2005).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 56185/07

  MADER v. CROATIA

  The Court reiterates that where an applicant has a choice of domestic remedies, it is sufficient for the purposes of the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies that he or she make use of a remedy which is not unreasonable and which is capable of providing redress for the substance of his or her Convention complaints (see, inter alia, Hilal v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45276/99, 8 February 2000, and Krumpel and Krumpelová v. Slovakia, no. 56195/00, § 43, 5 July 2005).
• EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 21188/09

  GLUHAKOVIC v. CROATIA

  The Court reiterates further that where an applicant has a choice of domestic remedies, it is sufficient for the purposes of the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies that he or she make use of a remedy which is not unreasonable and which is capable of providing redress for the substance of his or her Convention complaints (see, inter alia, Hilal v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45276/99, 8 February 2000, and Krumpel and Krumpelová v. Slovakia, no. 56195/00, § 43, 5 July 2005).
• EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 57678/00

  BIRO v. SLOVAKIA (No. 2)

  The Court observes that the applicant's claim for damages which he joined to the proceedings in respect of his criminal complaint of 22 February 1999 is compatible ratione materiae with the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, §§ 67-70, ECHR 2004-I, Krumpel and Krumpelová v. Slovakia, no. 56195/00, §§ 39-41, 5 July 2005 and Pfleger v. the Czech Republic, no. 58116/00, §§ 37-41, 27 July 2004).
• EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 56842/08

  ALEXANDRESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  As civil-party proceedings constitute a civil action for reparation of damage caused by an offence and the outcome of the criminal investigation is decisive for the "civil right" in question, the proceedings come within the field of application of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, §§ 62-66 and 74-75, ECHR 2004-I, Krumpel and Krumpelová v. Slovakia, no. 56195/00, §§ 45-49, 5 July 2005, and Javor and Javorová v. Slovakia, no. 42360/10, §§ 46-66, 15 September 2015).
• EGMR, 20.10.2010 - 22736/06

  POSTOVA BANKA, A.S. v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 29.09.2015 - 63158/14

  PERHÁCS v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 59525/11

  SARKOCY v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 6973/04

  ADAMSKI v. POLAND