Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KARAKUTSYA v. UKRAINE

  No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KARAKUTSI v. UKRAINE

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

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00

  Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2017 - 18986/06

  The "right to a court", of which the right of access is one aspect, is not absolute; it is subject to limitations permitted by implication, particularly where the conditions of admissibility of an appeal are concerned (see, among other authorities, Brualla Gómez de la Torre v. Spain, 19 December 1997, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII and Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 92, ECHR 2004-VIII).
• EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

  DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2017 - 18986/06

  However, where such courts do exist, the requirements of Article 6 must be complied with, such as the guarantee to litigants of an effective right of access to the courts for the determination of their "civil rights and obligations" (see, among other authorities, Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, §§ 25 and 26, Series A no. 11 and Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 88, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12129/86

  HENNINGS v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2017 - 18986/06

  The question to be decided is whether an individual's access to a court has been denied in the circumstances of a particular case (see, generally, Hennings v. Germany, 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-A, and Bogonos, cited above).

 
• EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 46577/15

  IVANOVA AND CHERKEZOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2017 - 18986/06

  The Court next reiterates from its settled case-law that loss of one's home is a most extreme form of interference with the right to respect for the home (see, among other authorities, McCann v. the United Kingdom, no. 19009/04, § 50, 13 May 2008; Kryvitska and Kryvitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 30856/03, § 41, 2 December 2010; and Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria, no. 46577/15, §§ 52-53 with further references, 21 April 2016).
• EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 47273/99

  BELES AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2017 - 18986/06

  On a number of occasions the Court has found that domestic courts may undermine the very essence of an applicant's right to a court by deciding not to examine the merits of a case on the basis of a particularly strict construction of a procedural rule (see, for example, Beles and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 47273/99, § 51, ECHR 2002-IX).
• EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 24197/10

  MUSCAT v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2017 - 18986/06

  The Court's role is, however, to ascertain whether the effects of such an interpretation are compatible with the Convention (see Muscat v. Malta, no. 24197/10, § 43, 17 July 2012 with further references).
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 30856/03

  KRYVITSKA AND KRYVITSKYY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2017 - 18986/06

  The Court next reiterates from its settled case-law that loss of one's home is a most extreme form of interference with the right to respect for the home (see, among other authorities, McCann v. the United Kingdom, no. 19009/04, § 50, 13 May 2008; Kryvitska and Kryvitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 30856/03, § 41, 2 December 2010; and Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria, no. 46577/15, §§ 52-53 with further references, 21 April 2016).
• EGMR, 06.12.2005 - 64001/00

  MIKULOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2017 - 18986/06

  However, at the same time the Court has recognised that the rules which govern the conditions for the admissibility of appeals are designed to ensure the proper administration of justice and compliance with, in particular, the principle of legal certainty, and that those concerned must expect those rules to be applied (see, among other authorities, Mikulová v. Slovakia, no. 64001/00, § 52, 6 December 2005).

• EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 44442/13

  GRYGOROV v. UKRAINE

  merits 10. The general principles applicable to the present case are summarised in Karakutsya v. Ukraine (no. 18986/06, §§ 44-45 and 53, 16 February 2017).
• EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 52193/09

  VOLFOVYCH v. UKRAINE

  The Court will not substitute its own interpretation for theirs in the absence of manifest arbitrariness (see, for example, Tejedor García, 16 December 1997, § 31, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII, and Karakutsya v. Ukraine, no. 18986/06, § 69, 16 February 2017).