Herausgeber:
Sonstige öffentliche Herausgeber
Erscheinungsjahr:
2014
PURL:
https://www.eliechtensteinensia.li/viewer/object/000364340/9/
However, the State Court has also ruled that these four criteria? only constitute aspects 
"which the ECtHR applies to assess the duration of proceedings in the individual case. They 
do not constitute a standard of their own, since it is always the concrete constellation of the 
individual case that the determines the adequacy of the duration of proceedings." 38 
Taking the case law of the ECtHR and the literature published in that context as an 
assessment standard, the State Court has for example considered a duration of proceedings 
which "divided by the number of instances results in between eighteen and twenty-four 
months" to be still acceptable.’ 9 
However, if an infringement of fundamental rights is found, the State Court is confronted with 
the problem that annulling the challenged decision will only extend the infringement if the 
factual decision as such is not modified. In these cases, the State Court (and incidentally, also 
the Austrian Constitutional Court)*® declares that the challenged decision "has violated the 
complaining party's right guaranteed by the Constitution and by the ECHR to a decision 
within a reasonable term pursuant to Art. 31 (1) LV und Art. 6 (1) ECHR." ^! So far, the State 
Court has never found grounds to partly annul the challenged decision (as the Austrian 
Constitutional Court does) ^, for example because in criminal proceedings the violation of the 
reasonable duration of proceedings would have to be taken into account in assessing the 
amount of the sentence. 
  
also Hugo Vogt, Rechtsverweigerung, Rechtsverzógerung, überspitzter Formalismus, in: Kley/Vallender (ed.), 
Grundrechtspraxis in Liechtenstein, LPS 52 (2012), p. 593 — 618 (p. 607 et seq.). 
7 As to the content of these four criteria in detail, see Christoph Grabenwarter/Katharina Pabel, Europäische 
Menschenrechtskonvention, 5" ed. (2012), p. 428 et sqq. margin no. 70. 
?* StGH 2005/52. 
3? StGH 2010/29, www.gerichtsentscheide.li, cons. 6 with reference to Wolfgang Peukert, in: Jochen Abr. 
Frowein/Wolfgang Peukert (ed.), Menschenrechtskonvention, 3" ed. (2009), margin no. 249. 
? Cf. e.g. VfSIg 16.747/2002; VfSlg 17.339/2004; VfSlg 18.012/2006. 
^! Cf. StGH 2011/32, www.gerichtsentscheide.li. 
BC, VfSig 17.339/2004: "Only the verdict on the sentence in the challenged order had to be annulled, given 
that the declared infringement of rights does not affect the verdict on guilt, and a modification can only be 
taken into account within the framework of sentencing pursuant to 8 16 (6) DSt 1990 (Austrian Disciplinary 
Statute for Lawyers and Trainee Lawyers) (arg. 'in particular'), in particular by constitutional consideration of 
the overly long duration of proceedings as a mitigating factor in mutatis mutandis application of 8 34 (2) StGB 
(Penal Code) (cf. VfSlg 16385/2001)." To the same effect also Grabenwarter/Pabel, Europáische 
Menschenrechtskonvention, p. 431 margin no. 72.
        

Nutzerhinweis

Sehr geehrte Benutzer,

aufgrund der aktuellen Entwicklungen in der Webtechnologie, die im Goobi viewer verwendet wird, unterstützt die Software den von Ihnen verwendeten Browser nicht mehr.

Bitte benutzen Sie einen der folgenden Browser, um diese Seite korrekt darstellen zu können.

Vielen Dank für Ihr Verständnis.