Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  R.P. AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Access to court) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 38245/08

  This is particularly so of the right of access to a court in view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial (see Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 24, Series A no. 32 and Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 59, ECHR 2005-II).
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 38245/08

  This is particularly so of the right of access to a court in view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial (see Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 24, Series A no. 32 and Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 59, ECHR 2005-II).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 38245/08

  Nonetheless, the limitations applied must not restrict or reduce the access left to the individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired (see the above-mentioned Golder and "Belgian Linguistic" judgments, ibid., and also Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, §§ 60 and 75, Series A no. 33).

 
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

  THLIMMENOS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 38245/08

  Consequently, although the Court accepts that the first applicant was treated differently from someone with legal capacity, it finds that her situation was significantly different from such a person and the difference in treatment was objectively and reasonably justified (see Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 38245/08

  Whilst the final decision as to observance of the Convention's requirements rests with the Court, it is no part of the Court's function to substitute for the assessment of the national authorities any other assessment of what might be the best policy in this field (Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, p. 24, para. 57).
• EGMR, 24.02.1995 - 16424/90

  McMICHAEL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 38245/08

  Therefore, although A.P., M.P. and B.P. played an active role in supporting R.P. during the care proceedings, it could not be said that those proceedings involved the determination of their civil rights and obligations (McMichael v. the United Kingdom, 24 February 1995, § 77, Series A no. 307-B).
• EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 46311/99

  McVICAR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 38245/08

  The institution of a legal-aid scheme constitutes one of those means but there are others, such as for example simplifying the applicable procedure (see Airey v. Ireland, cited above, pp. 14-16, § 26; and McVicar v. the United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, § 50, ECHR 2002-III).

• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 931/13

  SATAKUNNAN MARKKINAPÖRSSI OY AND SATAMEDIA OY v. FINLAND

  The Court sees no need to determine whether the Government are now estopped from making the above objection on account of their delay in raising it (see paragraphs 89-91 above) since it finds in any event that it concerns a matter which goes to the Court's jurisdiction and which it is not prevented from examining of its own motion (see, for instance, R.P. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 38245/08, § 47, 9 October 2012; and Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 70, ECHR 2016 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 35289/11

  REGNER c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

  While a State has a certain margin of appreciation when limiting Article 6 § 1 rights for certain legitimate ends, "[n]onetheless, the limitations applied must not restrict or reduce the access left to the individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired" (see R.P. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 38245/08, § 64, 9 October 2012).

  [7] Under this Court's case-law, the "very essence" test has been applied almost exclusively in the context of cases relating to the right of access to a court (see Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v. Switzerland [GC], no. 5809/08, § 129, ECHR 2016; Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 99, ECHR 2016 (extracts); and R.P. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 38245/08, § 65, 9 October 2012).

• EGMR, 14.04.2015 - 24014/05

  MUSTAFA TUNÇ ET FECIRE TUNÇ c. TURQUIE

  Dans son arrêt en l'affaire R.P. et autres c. Royaume-Uni (no 38245/08, 9 octobre 2012), la Cour a formulé les considérations suivantes (§ 47):.

  « La Cour a déjà déclaré qu'une exception relative à la qualité de victime touche à sa compétence, et qu'en tant que telle elle n'est pas dispensée de la soulever d'office (R.P. et autres c. Royaume-Uni, no 38245/08, § 47, 9 octobre 2012).

 
• EGMR, 15.10.2020 - 80982/12

  MUHAMMAD ET MUHAMMAD c. ROUMANIE

  See also Lithgow and Others, cited above, § 194; Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, cited above, § 52; Fayed, cited above, § 65; Bellet v. France,,4 December 1995, § 31, Series A no. 333-B; Stubbings and Others v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1996, § 50, 52 and 56, Reports 1996-IV; Tinnelly & Sons Ltd. and Others, and McElduff and Others, cited above, § 72; T.P. and K.M. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 98; Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 93, ECHR 2001; R.P. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 38245/08, § 64, 9 October 2012; Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc.
• EGMR, 23.02.2021 - 63687/14

  VILELA ET AUTRES c. PORTUGAL

  Elle estime que rien ne l'empêche toutefois d'examiner d'office cette question, qui touche à sa compétence (voir, par exemple, Blecic c. Croatie [GC], no 59532/00, § 67, CEDH 2006-III, et R.P. et autres c. Royaume-Uni, no 38245/08, § 47, 9 octobre 2012).
• EGMR, 22.06.2017 - 37931/15

  BARNEA ET CALDARARU c. ITALIE

  La Cour ne juge pas nécessaire d'examiner le point de savoir si le Gouvernement est forclos à soulever cette exception, car elle estime que rien ne l'empêche d'examiner proprio motu cette question, qui touche à sa compétence (voir par exemple R.P. et autres c. Royaume-Uni, no 38245/08, § 47, 9 octobre 2012 et Buzadji c. République de Moldova [GC], no 23755/07, § 70, CEDH 2016 (extraits)).
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 16608/09

  FURMAN v. SLOVENIA AND AUSTRIA

  The Court has already held that the question of admissibility on the ground of victim status falls within the Court's jurisdiction and, as such, the Court is not estopped from raising it of its own motion (see R.P. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 38245/08, § 47, 9 October 2012).
• EGMR, 18.07.2017 - 25114/11

  NINA KUTSENKO v. UKRAINE

  Regardless of the possible interpretation of those submissions, the Court notes that the issue of the applicant's victim status concerns a matter of compatibility ratione personae, which goes to the Court's jurisdiction and does not depend on the existence of an objection by the Government to that effect (see, for example, R.P. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 38245/08, § 47, 9 October 2012, and Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 70, ECHR 2016 (extracts)).