Violation Art. 6 para. 1 length of the Trier proceedings;Violation Art. 6 para. 1 length of the Cologne proceedings

#Smernica 90/313/EHS - Sloboda prístupu k informáciám o životnom prostredí - Žiadosť o informácie - Povinnosť odôvodnenia v prípade zamietnutia - Záväzná lehota - Nečinnosť orgánu verejnej moci počas lehoty

On 16 February 2005 the court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings.

    On 22 September 2005 the Court decided to communicate the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings.

Violation of Art. 6-1 (length of proceedings);Remainder inadmissible

Violation of Art. 6-1 (length of proceedings);Remainder inadmissible

osobám, ktoré nie sú usadené v členskom štáte vrátenia dane – Článok 178 písm. a) – Pravidlá upravujúce uplatnenie práva na odpočítanie DPH – Smernica 2008/9/ES – Pravidlá pre vrátenie DPH – Prekluzívna lehota

No violation of Art. 6-1 (length of proceedings);Remainder inadmissible

Struck out : The applicant left a will in which he had appointed Ms Yahi as his universal legatee. She was not a close relative of the applicant.

    ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION CONCERNING THE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS 12.

    Having regard to the overall length of the proceedings, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement

relative à la prise de contrôle exclusif de 18 fonds de commerce sous enseigne «Monoprix» par le groupe Legout

relative à la prise de contrôle exclusif de quatre fonds de commerce sous enseigne Monoprix par le groupe Legout

    On 22 October 2004 the Court decided to communicate the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings to the Government.

    On 23 March 2004, the Court decided to communicate the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings to the Government.

    The complaint concerning the length of the proceedings 29.

Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.

At any rate, the applicant had failed to lodge a constitutional complaint, which was an effective remedy for the length of the inheritance proceedings.