Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BAKO v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (6)

• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75529/01

  Verschleppter Prozess - Mann prozessiert seit 16 Jahren um Entschädigung nach …

  In der Folge hat der Gerichtshof Rechtsbehelfe gegen die Verfahrensdauer in einigen Mitgliedstaaten auf ihre Wirksamkeit i.S. von Art. 13 EMRK genauer überprüft (s. u.a. EGMR, Entsch. v. 2.10.2001 - 42320/98 - Belinger/Slowenien, unveröff.; EGMR, Slg. 2002-IX - Andrasik u.a./Slowakei; EGMR, Slg. 2002-VII - Slavicek/Kroatien; EGMR, Slg. 2002-IX - Fernandez-Molina Gonzalez u.a./Spanien; EGMR, Slg. 2003-X - Doran/Irland; EGMR, Slg. 2003-VIII - Hartman/Tschechien; EGMR, Slg. 2003-VIII - Paulino Tomas/Portugal; EGMR, Entsch. v. 29.1. 2004 - 53084/99 - Kormatcheva/Russland, unveröff; EGMR, Entsch. v. 15.3. 2005 - 60227/00 - Bako/Slowakei, unveröff.; EGMR, Slg. 2005-V - Charzynski/Polen; EGMR, Slg. 2005-X - Lukenda/Slowenien).
• EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 40756/06

  VLAD AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  64359/01 and others, ECHR 2002-IX; Doran v. Ireland, no. 50389/99, ECHR 2003-X (extracts); Hartman v. the Czech Republic, no. 53341/99, ECHR 2003-VIII; Paulino Tomas v. Portugal (dec.), no. 58698/00, ECHR 2003-VIII; Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, 29 January 2004; Bako v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 60227/00, 15 March 2005; Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-V; Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, ECHR 2005-X; Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, ECHR 2006-VII; Finger, cited above; and Milic v. Montenegro and Serbia, no. 28359/05, 11 December 2012).
• EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 41151/20

  ALTIUS INSURANCE LTD v. CYPRUS

  Instead, they argued that like in the case of Bako v. Slovakia ((dec.), 60227/00, 15 March 2005), the domestic law (namely Law (2(I)/2010)) was capable of covering all stages of the proceedings complained of, without excluding certain stages from the review, and provided for the award of damages covering the overall length of proceedings, despite the requirement that claims be lodged separately at each level of jurisdiction.

 
• EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 33946/03

  ROBERT LESJAK v. SLOVENIA

  Regardless of the effect the above acceleratory remedies would have on the proceedings before the Supreme Court, had the applicant used them, the Court does not consider that they could have had any significant effect on the length of the proceedings as a whole (see Holzinger v. Austria (no. 1), no. 23459/94, § 22, ECHR 2001-I, and Bako v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 60227/00, 15 March 2005).
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 1640/07

  SIKA v. SLOVAKIA (No. 7)

  In cases concerning the length of proceedings, this requirement will only be met where the domestic remedy in question is capable of covering all stages of the proceedings complained of and thus, in the same way as decisions given by the Court, of taking into account their overall length (see Bako v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 60227/00, 15 March 2005).
• EGMR, 23.05.2006 - 9545/02

  RUTTKAY AND RUTTKAYOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  The Court however finds no grounds for an assumption that, in this context, the level of just satisfaction awards by the Constitutional Court is generally insufficient (see Sirancová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 62216/00, 7 September 2004, Estok v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 63994/00, 28 September 2004, Dubjaková, cited above and Bako v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 60227/00, 15 March 2005).