Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GAVRIELIDOU and OTHERS v. CYPRUS

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Partly inadmissible Partly admissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 73802/01
• EGMR, 06.04.2006 - 73802/01

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 73802/01

  The Government have not made reference to specific, established case-law on the availability of damages for delay already suffered, or on the possibility of such an action being preventative of further delay (Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 159, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  LEANDER c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 73802/01

  Furthermore, they maintain that, according to the Court's case-law, the remedy required by Article 13 of the Convention does not need to be judicial and satisfy all the criteria of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (relying on Leander v. Sweden, judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, § 77, and M and EF v. Switzerland, no. 12573/86, Commission decision of 6 March 1987, DR 51 p. 283).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 73802/01

  The Court notes that a person with the required standing as a next-of-kin or an heir of the estate of the deceased may bring the application as a rightful successor or on behalf of the deceased and, in certain circumstances, on his own behalf - in his own name as a victim (McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324; X v. France, judgment of 31 March 1992, Series A no. 234-C, § 26; X v. Federal Republic of Germany, no. 4427/70, Commission decision of 25 May 1971, Collection of Decisions, vol. 38, pp. 38-39; Baader, Meins, Meinhof and Grundmann v. Federal Republic of Germany, no. 6166/73, Commission decision of 30 May 1975 DR 2, p. 66).

 
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 73802/01

  A different interpretation would absorb Article 13 within Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and would have the effect of making all Convention rights "civil rights" within its terms (relying on Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, § 33).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 73802/01

  Furthermore, the applicants aver that property rights, including the right to develop one's property in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, fall within the ambit of "civil rights" under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and thus the normal requirements of this provision, including the reasonable time requirement, also apply to proceedings concerning property rights (relying on Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, and Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 73802/01

  Finally, they state that a failure to have recourse to a remedy that meets the requirements of Article 13 will not necessarily amount to a failure to exhaust domestic remedies (relying on Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, § 113).
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 73802/01

  Furthermore, the applicants aver that property rights, including the right to develop one's property in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, fall within the ambit of "civil rights" under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and thus the normal requirements of this provision, including the reasonable time requirement, also apply to proceedings concerning property rights (relying on Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, and Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 73802/01

  It has to indicate to the Court with sufficient clarity the remedies to which the applicant has not had recourse and to satisfy the Court that the remedies were effective and available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say that they were accessible, were capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, § 68, and Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, § 35).
• EGMR, 31.03.1992 - 18020/91

  X c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 73802/01

  The Court notes that a person with the required standing as a next-of-kin or an heir of the estate of the deceased may bring the application as a rightful successor or on behalf of the deceased and, in certain circumstances, on his own behalf - in his own name as a victim (McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324; X v. France, judgment of 31 March 1992, Series A no. 234-C, § 26; X v. Federal Republic of Germany, no. 4427/70, Commission decision of 25 May 1971, Collection of Decisions, vol. 38, pp. 38-39; Baader, Meins, Meinhof and Grundmann v. Federal Republic of Germany, no. 6166/73, Commission decision of 30 May 1975 DR 2, p. 66).