Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KURIL v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (25)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 63959/00

  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 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, 28.08.2007 - 41484/04

  KLADIVIK AND KASIAR v. SLOVAKIA

  Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases against the Slovak Republic (see, for example, Kuril v. Slovakia, no. 63959/00, §§ 35-43, 3 October 2006; Risková v. Slovakia, no. 58174/00, §§ 88-97, 22 August 2006 or Sika v. Slovakia, no. 2132/02, §§ 28-35, 13 June 2006).
• EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 537/07

  MACKO v. SLOVAKIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Slovakia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Kuril v. Slovakia, no. 63959/00, §§ 35-43, 3 October 2006; Rapos v. Slovakia, no. 25763/02, §§ 27-34, 20 May 2008; or Bic v. Slovakia, no. 23865/03, §§ 33-41, 4 November 2008).
• EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 39026/10

  FILKA v. SLOVAKIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Slovakia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-227, ECHR 2006-,-ECHR 2006-V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Kuril v. Slovakia, no. 63959/00, §§ 39-43, 3 October 2006; Rapos v. Slovakia, no. 25763/02, §§ 32-34, 20 May 2008; or Bic v. Slovakia, no. 23865/03, §§ 39-41, 4 November 2008).

 
• EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 2514/10

  KREDIT SLOVAKIA PLUS S.R.O. v. SLOVAKIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Slovakia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Kuril v. Slovakia, no. 63959/00, §§ 39-43, 3 October 2006; Rapos v. Slovakia, no. 25763/02, §§ 32-34, 20 May 2008; or Bic v. Slovakia, no. 23865/03, §§ 39-41, 4 November 2008).
• EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 61873/09

  SLOVAK v. SLOVAKIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Slovakia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Kuril v. Slovakia, no. 63959/00, §§ 39-43, 3 October 2006; Rapos v. Slovakia, no. 25763/02, §§ 32-34, 20 May 2008; or Bic v. Slovakia, no. 23865/03, §§ 39-41, 4 November 2008).
• EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 10481/06

  LAUFIK v. SLOVAKIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Slovakia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Kuril v. Slovakia, no. 63959/00, §§ 35-43, 3 October 2006; Rapos v. Slovakia, no. 25763/02, §§ 27-34, 20 May 2008; or Bic v. Slovakia, no. 23865/03, §§ 33-41, 4 November 2008).
• EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 25313/07

  GALLO v. SLOVAKIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Slovakia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Kuril v. Slovakia, no. 63959/00, §§ 35-43, 3 October 2006; Rapos v. Slovakia, no. 25763/02, §§ 27-34, 20 May 2008; or Bic v. Slovakia, no. 23865/03, §§ 33-41, 4 November 2008).
• EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 33529/08

  KOUDELOVA AND DROBNA v. SLOVAKIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Slovakia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Kuril v. Slovakia, no. 63959/00, §§ 35-43, 3 October 2006; Rapos v. Slovakia, no. 25763/02, §§ 27-34, 20 May 2008; or Bic v. Slovakia, no. 23865/03, §§ 33-41, 4 November 2008).
• EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 22929/06

  HAMMEL v. SLOVAKIA

  Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases against the Slovak Republic (see, for example, Kuril v. Slovakia, no. 63959/00, §§ 35-43, 3 October 2006, Rapos v. Slovakia, no. 25763/02, §§ 27-34, 20 May 2008, or Bic v. Slovakia, no. 23865/03, §§ 33-41, 4 November 2008).
• EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 24704/05

  PRISCAKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases against the Slovak Republic (see, for example, Kuril v. Slovakia, no. 63959/00, §§ 35-43, 3 October 2006; Sika v. Slovakia, no. 2132/02, §§ 28-35, 13 June 2006 or Bic v. Slovakia, no. 23865/03, §§ 33-41, 4 November 2008).
• EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 27644/05

  LIBIC v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 21805/06

  DVORAKOVA AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 15074/05

  HAJDUCH v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 48558/06

  BRUNOVA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 01.04.2008 - 1928/04

  SEVCIKOVA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 10728/05

  LUKAC v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 24151/05

  DUCHON v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 35316/05

  TOVIS v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 40769/05

  PAVKOVA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 25088/04

  SIKA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 42555/04

  SIKA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 11.09.2007 - 35324/05

  GE MONEY BANK GMBH v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 11.09.2007 - 32494/05

  ZEMANOVA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 28.08.2007 - 13876/05

  BOSNAK v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 19.06.2007 - 14081/03

  FELBERT v. SLOVAKIA