Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 4550/15

Where the specialist panel has determined in proceedings under Articles 99 § 2 and 189 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure that grounds under Article 99 § 1, second sentence, of the Code for keeping certain files confidential exist and such order becomes final, the court adjudicating the main proceedings must treat that order like a final interlocutory judgment (see, for example, Federal Administrative Court, no. 20 F 3.03, 15 August 2003, at para. 4).

Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 4550/15

If a decision, which may be challenged with a constitutional complaint, is later challenged jointly with the subsequent judgment - for which the earlier decision was legally binding -, complaints against the earlier decision are inadmissible for failure to comply with the time-limit if the one-month limit has lapsed by then (see Federal Constitutional Court, no. 1 BvR 1877/01, order of 26 June 2007, at para. 11).

Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 4550/15

To be effective, a remedy must be capable of remedying directly the impugned state of affairs and must offer reasonable prospects of success (for a summary of the relevant principles see, among many other authorities, Gherghina v. Romania (dec.) [GC], no. 42219/07, §§ 83-89, 9 July 2015).

Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 4550/15

He did not make use of the remedy provided for by domestic law in that respect to complain about the length of the proceedings (Section 198 of the Court Constitutions Act, see also Saure v. Germany (dec.), no. 6106/16, § 44, 19 October 2021).

Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 4550/15

In Das Universelle Leben aller Kulturen weltweit v. Germany ((dec.), no. 60369/11, 17 November 2015), the applicant had complained about an order by a specialist panel in proceedings under Article 99 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure.