Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 14366/08 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,1841) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MIJAILOVIC v. SERBIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 12 Art. 1 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00
BLECIC v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 14366/08
Notwithstanding the fact that the issue was not disputed by the parties" submissions, the Court must first ascertain whether Article 6 is applicable in the instant case (see, mutatis mutandis, Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-III). - EGMR, 26.03.1992 - 11760/85
ÉDITIONS PÉRISCOPE v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 14366/08
The Court must therefore ascertain whether the applicant's arguments were sufficiently tenable (see, mutatis mutandis, Le Calvez v. France, 29 July 1998, § 56, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-V) to satisfy the essential conditions defined in the law for an award of compensation; it does not have to decide whether they were well-founded in terms of the Serbian legislation (see, mutatis mutandis, Neves e Silva v. Portugal, 27 April 1989, § 37, Series A no. 153-A) or whether another legal basis would have afforded better prospects of success (see Editions Périscope v. France, 26 March 1992, § 38, Series A no. 234-B). - EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 15346/89
MASSON AND VAN ZON v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 14366/08
According to the Court's well-established case-law, the applicability of the civil limb of Article 6 § 1 requires the existence of a "dispute" over a (civil) "right" which could be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law (see, for instance, Rolf Gustafson v. Sweden, 1 July 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV, §§ 38-40; the Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands, 28 September 1995, § 44, Series A no. 327-A). - EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79
BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 14366/08
Even assuming the establishment of delayed delivery, the Court, however, observes that the applicant did not place before either the domestic courts or the Court any plausible argument substantiating damage resulting from that conduct or to justify his understanding that he would be entitled to be paid damages (see Kunkova and Kunkov v. Russia (dec.), no. 74690/01, 12 October 2006, and Artyomov v. Russia, no. 14146/02, § 198, 27 May 2010; contrast, for example, with Baraona, cited above, §§ 41, and James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 81, Series A no. 98).