Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SKORIK v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 32671/02

  The Court reiterates that the right to a court, of which the right of access is one aspect (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 18, § 36), is not absolute; it may be subject to limitations permitted by implication, particularly regarding the conditions of admissibility of an appeal.
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85

  HELMERS c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 32671/02

  Moreover, the manner in which Article 6 applies to courts of appeal or cassation must depend on the special features of the proceedings concerned and account must be taken of the entirety of the proceedings conducted in the domestic legal order and the court of cassation's role in them (see, for instance, Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 115, p. 22, § 56, and Helmers v. Sweden, judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-A, p. 15, § 31); the conditions of admissibility of an appeal on points of law may be stricter than for an ordinary appeal (Levages Prestations Services v. France judgment of 23 October 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1544, § 45).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 32671/02

  Furthermore, it is the domestic courts which are best placed to assess the credibility of witnesses and the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, among many other authorities, the judgments in Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, § 32, and Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, § 34).

 
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 32671/02

  Furthermore, it is the domestic courts which are best placed to assess the credibility of witnesses and the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, among many other authorities, the judgments in Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, § 32, and Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, § 34).
• EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 46129/99

  ZVOLSKÝ AND ZVOLSKÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 32671/02

  The Court underlines that, since the issue concerns the principle of legal certainty, it raises not only a problem of the interpretation of a legal provision in the usual way, but of an unreasonable construction of a procedural requirement which may prevent a claim being examined on the merits, thereby entailing a breach of the right to the effective protection of the courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Miragall Escolano and Others v. Spain, no. 38366/97, § 37, ECHR 2001-I; and Zvolský and Zvolská v. the Czech Republic, no. 46129/99, § 51, ECHR 2002-IX).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81

  MONNELL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 32671/02

  Moreover, the manner in which Article 6 applies to courts of appeal or cassation must depend on the special features of the proceedings concerned and account must be taken of the entirety of the proceedings conducted in the domestic legal order and the court of cassation's role in them (see, for instance, Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 115, p. 22, § 56, and Helmers v. Sweden, judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-A, p. 15, § 31); the conditions of admissibility of an appeal on points of law may be stricter than for an ordinary appeal (Levages Prestations Services v. France judgment of 23 October 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1544, § 45).

• EGMR, 26.04.2011 - 35164/05

  ABDULLAH YILDIZ v. TURKEY

  In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court does not find that these complaints disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols (as regards the complaint concerning the independence and impartiality of the Supreme Military Administrative Court, see Yavuz and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 29870/96, 25 May 2000; as for the complaints concerning appeal procedures, chamber assignments and access to classified documents, see KarayiÄ?it (dec.), cited above; as regards the complaint concerning the erroneous and insufficient reasoning in the domestic court's decision, see García Ruiz v. Spain, [GC], no. 30544/96, ECHR 1999-I, and Skorik v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 32671/02, 8 January 2008).
• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 9548/06

  ARSLANTAY v. TURKEY

  In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court does not find that these complaints disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols (as regards the complaint concerning the independence and impartiality of the Supreme Military Administrative Court, see Yavuz and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 29870/96, 25 May 2000; as for the complaints concerning appeal procedures, chamber assignments and access to classified documents, see KarayiÄ?it (dec.), cited above; as regards the complaint concerning the erroneous and insufficient reasoning in the domestic court's decision, see García Ruiz v. Spain ([GC], no. 30544/96, ECHR 1999-I); Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, § 61, Series A no. 288; Skorik v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 32671/02, 8 January 2008).
• EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 52154/07

  KIZIROGLU v. TURKEY

  In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court does not find that these complaints disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols (as regards the complaint concerning the independence and impartiality of the Supreme Military Administrative Court on account of its composition, see Yavuz and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 29870/96, 25 May 2000; as for the remaining complaints, see García Ruiz v. Spain, [GC], no. 30544/96, ECHR 1999-I; Skorik v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 32671/02, 8 January 2008).