Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ARLEWIN v. SWEDEN

  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione personae);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ARLEWIN v. SWEDEN

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 22302/10

  In this way it embodies the "right to a court", of which the right of access, that is the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters, constitutes one aspect (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, §§ 35-36, Series A no. 18).

  In this way Article 6 embodies the "right to a court", of which the right of access, that is the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters, constitutes one aspect only (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18).

• EGMR, 24.05.2006 - 63945/00

  WEISSMAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 22302/10

  In the specific circumstances of a particular case, the practical and effective nature of this right may be impaired, for instance by the prohibitive cost of the proceedings in view of the individual's financial capacity or by the excessive amount of security for costs in the context of an application to join criminal proceedings as a civil party (see Aït-Mouhoub v. France, 28 October 1998, §§ 57-58, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII, and also García Manibardo v. Spain, no. 38695/97, §§ 38-45, ECHR 2000-II) or excessive court fees (see Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, §§ 60-67, ECHR 2001-VI; Podbielski and PPU Polpure v. Poland, no. 39199/98, §§ 65-66, 26 July 2005; and Weissman and Others v. Romania, no. 63945/00, § 42, ECHR 2006-VII (extracts); see also, conversely, Reuther v. Germany (dec.), no. 74789/01, ECHR 2003-X).
• EGMR, 05.06.2003 - 74789/01

  REUTHER contre l'ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 22302/10

  In the specific circumstances of a particular case, the practical and effective nature of this right may be impaired, for instance by the prohibitive cost of the proceedings in view of the individual's financial capacity or by the excessive amount of security for costs in the context of an application to join criminal proceedings as a civil party (see Aït-Mouhoub v. France, 28 October 1998, §§ 57-58, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII, and also García Manibardo v. Spain, no. 38695/97, §§ 38-45, ECHR 2000-II) or excessive court fees (see Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, §§ 60-67, ECHR 2001-VI; Podbielski and PPU Polpure v. Poland, no. 39199/98, §§ 65-66, 26 July 2005; and Weissman and Others v. Romania, no. 63945/00, § 42, ECHR 2006-VII (extracts); see also, conversely, Reuther v. Germany (dec.), no. 74789/01, ECHR 2003-X).

 
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 22302/10

  The engagement undertaken by a Contracting State under Article 1 of the Convention is confined to "securing" the listed rights and freedoms to persons within its own "jurisdiction" (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 86, Series A no. 161).
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 26083/94

  WAITE AND KENNEDY v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 22302/10

  Hence, Article 6 § 1 will be complied with if the person concerned had available to him reasonable alternative means to protect effectively his rights under the Convention (see Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, §§ 68-74, ECHR 1999-I; Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 48, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Chapman v. Belgium (dec.), no. 39619/06, §§ 51-56, 5 March 2013).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 22302/10

  Hence, Article 6 § 1 will be complied with if the person concerned had available to him reasonable alternative means to protect effectively his rights under the Convention (see Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, §§ 68-74, ECHR 1999-I; Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 48, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Chapman v. Belgium (dec.), no. 39619/06, §§ 51-56, 5 March 2013).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 23805/94

  BELLET c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 22302/10

  It is important that access to court, when assessed as a right established under Article 6 of the Convention, is "practical and effective" (see Bellet v. France, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 333-B).
• EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 39619/06

  CHAPMAN v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 22302/10

  Hence, Article 6 § 1 will be complied with if the person concerned had available to him reasonable alternative means to protect effectively his rights under the Convention (see Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, §§ 68-74, ECHR 1999-I; Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 48, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Chapman v. Belgium (dec.), no. 39619/06, §§ 51-56, 5 March 2013).
• EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 69829/01

  NUNES DIAS contre le PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 22302/10

  2672/03 and 69829/01, ECHR 2003-IV).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 22302/10

  Thus the complaint intended to be made subsequently to the Court must first have been made - at least in substance - to the appropriate domestic body, and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V, with further references).
• EuGH, 09.07.1997 - C-34/95

  De Agostini
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 51357/07

  NAIT-LIMAN c. SUISSE

  " (considérant 3.5 de l'arrêt, cité au paragraphe 22 ci-dessus ; voir, a contrario, Arlewin c. Suède, no 22302/10, §§ 72 et suivants, 1er mars 2016).

  En l'espèce, le rejet du recours du requérant sans un examen sur le fond par les tribunaux suisses a gravement nui à la substance du droit d'accès du requérant à un tribunal (voir, a contrario, Arlewin c. Suède, no 22302/10, §§ 72 et 73, 1er mars 2016).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 16.09.2021 - C-251/20

  Gtflix Tv - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Justizielle Zusammenarbeit in …

  89 Urteil des EGMR vom 1. März 2016, Arlewin/Schweden (CE:ECHR:2016:0301JUD002230210).
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 64371/16

  WIEDER AND GUARNIERI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Similarly, in Arlewin v. Sweden (no. 22302/10, §§ 63 and 65, 1 March 2016) the Court found that injury to the applicant's privacy and reputation occasioned by the broadcast of a television programme took place in Sweden, where the programme was broadcast, and not in the United Kingdom, where the broadcaster had its head office.