Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ERNESTINA ZULLO v. ITALY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 17, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objections rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic proceedings victim) Violation of Art. 6-1 Lack of jurisdiction as regards Art. 13 17 and 34 (new complaints) Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ERNESTINA ZULLO c. ITALIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 17, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Exceptions préliminaires rejetées (non-épuisement des voies de recours internes victime) Violation de l'art. 6-1 Incompétence en ce qui concerne les art. 13 17 et 34 (griefs nouveaux) Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 22.01.2004 - 64897/01
• EGMR, 10.11.2004 - 64897/01
• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64897/01

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Zitiert selbst (37)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64897/01

  For practical reasons Mrs Ernestina Zullo will continue to be called "the applicant" in this judgment, although Mr Casciano is now to be regarded as such (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999-VI).

  The Court considers that the applicant's son has a legitimate interest in obtaining a finding of a breach of the right guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to have his case heard within a reasonable time (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, §§ 1 and 39, ECHR 1999-VI).

  The Court also reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, for example, Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 32, §§ 69 et seq.; Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI; and Jensen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X).

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64897/01

  The rule in Article 35 § 1 is based on the assumption, reflected in Article 13 (with which it has close affinity), that there is an effective domestic remedy available in respect of the alleged breach of an individual's Convention rights (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 48787/99

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64897/01

  It follows, inter alia, that a judgment in which the Court finds a violation of the Convention or its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and make all feasible reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see Assanidzé v. Georgia, cited above, § 198, and Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 487, ECHR 2004-VII).

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64897/01

  The purpose of Article 35 § 1, which sets out the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies, is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, among other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64897/01

  The Court also reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, for example, Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 32, §§ 69 et seq.; Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI; and Jensen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64897/01

  Consequently, they are not covered by the admissibility decision of 20 November 2003 which marks out the limits within which the Court must place itself (see, among other authorities, mutatis mutandis, Assanidzé v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 162, ECHR 2004-II).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98

  Enteignung eines Gemäldes in Tschechien auf Grund der Benes-Dekrete - …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64897/01

  In that connection it should be reiterated that the Convention is intended to guarantee not theoretical or illusory rights, but rights that are practical and effective (see Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 45, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64897/01

  Referring to the judgment of Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy ([GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, §§ 255-58, ECHR 2000-VIII), the lawyers who had represented the applicant before the Chamber also requested that the fees be paid directly to them.
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

  Maestri ./. Italien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64897/01

  Furthermore, it follows from the Convention, and from Article 1 in particular, that in ratifying the Convention the Contracting States undertake to ensure that their domestic legislation is compatible with it (see Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 47, ECHR 2004-I).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64897/01

  The existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see, inter alia, Vernillo v. France, judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, pp. 11-12, § 27; Dalia v. France, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, pp. 87-88, § 38; and Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 34884/97
• EGMR, 02.12.1999 - 32082/96

  Überprüfung der Länge eines in Portugal anhängigen Strafverfahrens durch den …
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

  CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

  BRUSCO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 42320/98

  BELINGER v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 58698/00

  PAULINO TOMAS contre le PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 57984/00

  ANDRASIK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 24549/03

  MICHALAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 24.06.2004 - 56079/00

  DI SANTE contre l'ITALIE
• EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 8415/02

  METAXAS c. GRECE
• EGMR, 04.07.2002 - 20862/02

  SLAVICEK contre la CROATIE
• EGMR, 15.05.2003 - 72203/01
• EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 67299/01

  DUBJAKOVA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 11.12.2003 - 62503/00

  KARAHALIOS c. GRECE
• EGMR, 08.10.2002 - 64359/01
• EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 62915/00

  BACCHINI c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 35265/97

  A.P. v. ITALY
• EGMR, 27.04.2000 - 40184/98

  S.A.GE.MA S.N.C. c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 623/02

  KUNZ c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 27.04.2000 - 38113/97

  ROTONDI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 24715/04

  GATTUSO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 708/02

  FEHR c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 21.10.2004 - 62253/00

  CAPOGROSSI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97

  COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 62361/00

  RICCARDI PIZZATI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 5264/03

  GÜLBAHAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 17650/02

  GAVAZHUK v. UKRAINE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 67785/01

  GIUSEPPE QUATTRONE c. ITALIE

  Elle rappelle en outre avoir affirmé dans neuf arrêts contre l'Italie du 29 mars 2006 (Scordino (no 1), précité, § 224, Cocchiarella c. Italie [GC], no 64886/01, § 119, CEDH 2006-..., Musci c. Italie [GC], no 64699/01, § 119, CEDH 2006-..., Riccardi Pizzati c. Italie [GC], no 62361/00, § 116, 29 mars 2006, Giuseppe Mostacciuolo c. Italie (no 1) [GC], no 64705/01, § 117, 29 mars 2006, Giuseppe Mostacciuolo c. Italie (no 2) [GC], no 65102/01, § 116, 29 mars 2006, Apicella c. Italie [GC], no 64890/01, § 116, 29 mars 2006, Ernestina Zullo c. Italie [GC], no 64897/01, § 121, 29 mars 2006, et Giuseppina et Orestina Procaccini c. Italie [GC], no 65075/01, § 117, 29 mars 2006) que la situation de l'Italie au sujet des retards dans l'administration de la justice n'a pas suffisamment changé pour remettre en cause l'évaluation selon laquelle l'accumulation de manquements est constitutive d'une pratique incompatible avec la Convention.
• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64886/01

  COCCHIARELLA v. ITALY

  Le président de la Cour a décidé que dans l'intérêt d'une bonne administration de la justice l'affaire devait être attribuée à la même Grande Chambre que les affaires Riccardi Pizzati c. Italie, Musci c. Italie, Giuseppe Mostacciuolo c. Italie (no 1), Apicella c. Italie, Ernestina Zullo c. Italie, Giuseppina et Orestina Procaccini c. Italie, et Giuseppe Mostacciuolo c. Italie (no 2) (nos 62361/00, 64699/01, 64705/01, 64890/01, 64897/01, 65075/01 et 65102/01, respectivement) (articles 24, 42 § 2 et 71 du règlement).
• EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 68610/01

  GAUTIERI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Elle rappelle en outre avoir affirmé dans neuf arrêts contre l'Italie du 29 mars 2006 (Scordino (no 1), précité, § 224, Cocchiarella c. Italie [GC], no 64886/01, § 119, CEDH 2006-..., Musci c. Italie [GC], no 64699/01, § 119, CEDH 2006-..., Riccardi Pizzati c. Italie [GC], no 62361/00, § 116, 29 mars 2006, Giuseppe Mostacciuolo c. Italie (no 1) [GC], no 64705/01, § 117, 29 mars 2006, Giuseppe Mostacciuolo c. Italie (no 2) [GC], no 65102/01, § 116, 29 mars 2006, Apicella c. Italie [GC], no 64890/01, § 116, 29 mars 2006, Ernestina Zullo c. Italie [GC], no 64897/01, § 121, 29 mars 2006, et Giuseppina et Orestina Procaccini c. Italie [GC], no 65075/01, § 117, 29 mars 2006) que la situation de l'Italie au sujet des retards dans l'administration de la justice n'a pas suffisamment changé pour remettre en cause l'évaluation selon laquelle l'accumulation de manquements est constitutive d'une pratique incompatible avec la Convention.

• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 65075/01

  GIUSEPPINA AND ORESTINA PROCACCINI v. ITALY

  Le président de la Cour a décidé que dans l'intérêt d'une bonne administration de la justice l'affaire devait être attribuée à la même Grande Chambre que les affaires Riccardi Pizzati c. Italie, Musci c. Italie, Giuseppe Mostacciuolo c. Italie (no 1), Cocchiarella c. Italie, Apicella c. Italie, Ernestina Zullo c. Italie et Giuseppe Mostacciuolo c. Italie (no 2) (requêtes nos 62361/00, 64699/01, 64705/01, 64886/01, 64890/01, 64897/01 et 65102/01) (articles 24, 42 § 2 et 71 du règlement).
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 77156/01

  MILAZZO c. ITALIE

  Elle rappelle en outre avoir affirmé dans neuf arrêts contre l'Italie du 29 mars 2006 (Scordino (no 1), précité, § 224, Cocchiarella, précité, Musci c. Italie [GC], no 64699/01, § 119, CEDH 2006-..., Riccardi Pizzati c. Italie [GC], no 62361/00, § 116, 29 mars 2006, Giuseppe Mostacciuolo c. Italie (no 1) [GC], no 64705/01, § 117, 29 mars 2006, Giuseppe Mostacciuolo c. Italie (no 2) [GC], no 65102/01, § 116, 29 mars 2006, Apicella c. Italie [GC], no 64890/01, § 116, 29 mars 2006, Ernestina Zullo c. Italie [GC], no 64897/01, § 121, 29 mars 2006, et Giuseppina et Orestina Procaccini c. Italie [GC], no 65075/01, § 117, 29 mars 2006) que la situation de l'Italie au sujet des retards dans l'administration de la justice n'a pas suffisamment changé pour remettre en cause l'évaluation selon laquelle l'accumulation de manquements est constitutive d'une pratique incompatible avec la Convention.
• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 62361/00

  RICCARDI PIZZATI c. ITALIE

  The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 27 §§ 2 and 3 of the Convention and Rule 24. The President of the Court decided that in the interests of the proper administration of justice the case should be assigned to the same Grand Chamber as the cases of Musci v. Italy, Giuseppe Mostacciuolo v. Italy (no. 1), Cocchiarella v. Italy, Apicella v. Italy, Ernestina Zullo v. Italy, Giuseppina and Orestina Procaccini v. Italy and Giuseppe Mostacciuolo v. Italy (no. 2) (applications nos. 64699/01, 64705/01, 64886/01, 64890/01, 64897/01, 65075/01 and 65102/01) (Rules 24, 42 § 2 and 71).
• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 65102/01

  GIUSEPPE MOSTACCIUOLO v. ITALY (No. 2)

  Le président de la Cour a décidé que dans l'intérêt d'une bonne administration de la justice l'affaire devait être attribuée à la même Grande Chambre que les affaires Riccardi Pizzati c. Italie, Musci c. Italie, Giuseppe Mostacciuolo c. Italie (no 1), Cocchiarella c. Italie, Apicella c. Italie, Ernestina Zullo c. Italie et Giuseppina et Orestina Procaccini c. Italie (requêtes nos 62361/00, 64699/01, 64705/01, 64886/01, 64890/01, 64897/01 et 65075/01) (articles 24, 42 § 2 et 71 du règlement).
• EGMR, 06.06.2019 - 48095/07

  CIOATA ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  La Cour estime que les fils des requérants ont un intérêt légitime à faire constater l'existence d'une atteinte au droit garanti par l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention à ce que leur cause soit entendue dans un délai raisonnable (Dalban c. Roumanie [GC], no 28114/95, §§ 1 et 39, CEDH 1999 VI, et Ernestina Zullo c. Italie [GC], no 64897/01, §§ 36-37, 29 mars 2006).
• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64705/01

  GIUSEPPE MOSTACCIUOLO v. ITALY (No. 1)

  The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 27 §§ 2 and 3 of the Convention and Rule 24. The President of the Court decided that in the interests of the proper administration of justice the case should be assigned to the same Grand Chamber as the cases of Riccardi Pizzati v. Italy, Musci v. Italy, Cocchiarella v. Italy, Apicella v. Italy, Ernestina Zullo v. Italy, Giuseppina and Orestina Procaccini v. Italy and Giuseppe Mostacciuolo v. Italy (no. 2) (applications nos. 62361/00, 64886/01, 64699/01, 64890/01, 64897/01, 65075/01 and 65102/01) (Rules 24, 42 § 2 and 71).
• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64890/01

  APICELLA v. ITALY

  Le président de la Cour a décidé que dans l'intérêt d'une bonne administration de la justice l'affaire devait être attribuée à la même Grande Chambre que les affaires Riccardi Pizzati c. Italie, Musci c. Italie, Giuseppe Mostacciuolo c. Italie (no 1), Cocchiarella c. Italie, Ernestina Zullo c. Italie, Giuseppina et Orestina Procaccini c. Italie et Giuseppe Mostacciuolo c. Italie (no 2) (requêtes nos 62361/00, 64699/01, 64705/01, 64886/01, 64897/01, 65075/01 et 65102/01) (articles 24, 42 § 2 et 71 du règlement).
• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64699/01

  MUSCI v. ITALY
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 73575/01

  DI PIETRO c. ITALIE