Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GIUSEPPINA ET ORESTINA PROCACCINI 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 - ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GIUSEPPINA AND ORESTINA PROCACCINI 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 ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 22.01.2004 - 65075/01
• EGMR, 10.11.2004 - 65075/01
• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 65075/01

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (27)

• EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 36813/97

  SCORDINO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 65075/01

  - a discrepancy in the method of calculation [between the Court's case-law and section 2 of the Pinto Act] shall not affect the general vocation of Law no. 89 of 2001 to meet the objective of awarding proper compensation for a breach of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (vocation acknowledged by the European Court in, inter alia, a decision of 27 March 2003 in Scordino v. Italy (application no. 36813/97)), and accordingly shall not allow any doubt as to the compatibility of that domestic standard with the international commitments entered into by the Italian Republic when ratifying the European Convention and the formal recognition, also at constitutional level, of the principle stated in Article 6 § 1 of that Convention...".

  In the Government's submission, the Court had erred in its decision Scordino v. Italy (dec.), no. 36813/97, ECHR 2003-IV) in finding that, as the Court of Cassation had always held that complaints about the amount of compensation related to questions of fact, which fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the lower courts, an appeal on points of law was not a remedy that had to be exhausted Admittedly, the Court of Cassation, which examined points of law, could not superimpose its own assessment of questions relating to the merits or the assessment of the facts and evidence on those of the lower courts.

  Lastly, referring also to the information provided at the hearing in the Scordino case (no. 36813/97) the same day, the Government explained that as the amount earmarked in the budget in respect of Pinto cases had been insufficient in 2002 and 2003 it had been increased in 2004 and 2005.

• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 65075/01

  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, 02.12.1999 - 32082/96

  Überprüfung der Länge eines in Portugal anhängigen Strafverfahrens durch den …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 65075/01

  The Court has on many occasions acknowledged that this type of remedy is "effective" in so far as it allows for an earlier decision by the court concerned (see, among other authorities, Bacchini v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 62915/00, 21 June 2005; Kunz v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 623/02, 21 June 2005; Fehr and Lauterburg v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 708/02 and 1095/02, 21 June 2005; Holzinger (no. 1) (cited above, § 22), Gonzalez Marin v. Spain (dec.), no. 39521/98, ECHR 1999-VII; and Tomé Mota v. Portugal (dec.), no. 32082/96, ECHR 1999-IX).

 
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 65075/01

  Referring to the judgment of Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy ([GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, §§ 255-58, ECHR 2000-VIII), the lawyer who had represented the applicants before the Chamber also requested that the fees be paid directly to him.
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 65075/01

  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, 04.07.2002 - 20862/02

  SLAVICEK contre la CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 65075/01

  Moreover, some States, such as Austria, Croatia, Spain, Poland and the Slovak Republic, have understood the situation perfectly by choosing to combine two types of remedy, one designed to expedite the proceedings and the other to afford compensation (see, for example, Holzinger (no. 1), cited above, § 22; Slavicek v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20862/02, ECHR 2002-VII; Fernandez-Molina Gonzalez and Others v. Spain (dec.), no. 64359/01, ECHR 2002-IX; Michalak v. Poland (dec.), no. 24549/03, 1 March 2005; Andrásik and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 08.10.2002 - 64359/01

  FERNANDEZ-MOLINA GONZALEZ et AUTRES contre l'ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 65075/01

  Moreover, some States, such as Austria, Croatia, Spain, Poland and the Slovak Republic, have understood the situation perfectly by choosing to combine two types of remedy, one designed to expedite the proceedings and the other to afford compensation (see, for example, Holzinger (no. 1), cited above, § 22; Slavicek v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20862/02, ECHR 2002-VII; Fernandez-Molina Gonzalez and Others v. Spain (dec.), no. 64359/01, ECHR 2002-IX; Michalak v. Poland (dec.), no. 24549/03, 1 March 2005; Andrásik and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 57984/00

  ANDRASIK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 65075/01

  57984/00, 60226/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00 and 68563/01, ECHR 2002-IX).
• EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 58698/00

  PAULINO TOMAS contre le PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 65075/01

  Indeed, it cannot be ruled out that excessive delays in an action for compensation will affect whether the remedy is an adequate one (see Paulino Tomas v. Portugal (dec.), no. 58698/00, ECHR 2003-VIII; Belinger v. Slovenia, (dec.) no. 42320/98, 2 October 2001; and, mutatis mutandis, Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 156, ECHR 2004-XII).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 65075/01

  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, 08.07.2004 - 48787/99

  Transnistrien
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

  CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 24549/03

  MICHALAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 623/02

  KUNZ c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 62915/00

  BACCHINI c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 708/02

  FEHR c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 34256/96

  DI MAURO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 35265/97

  A.P. v. ITALY
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 34884/97

  BOTTAZZI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 42320/98

  BELINGER v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

  MAESTRI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97

  COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
• EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

  BRUSCO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

• 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, 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, 02.11.2006 - 73575/01

  DI PIETRO 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, 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.