Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AL-DULIMI AND MONTANA MANAGEMENT INC. v. SWITZERLAND

  Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione personae);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Civil rights and ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AL-DULIMI ET MONTANA MANAGEMENT INC. c. SUISSE

  Exception préliminaire rejetée (Article 35-3 - Ratione personae);Exception préliminaire rejetée (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);Violation de l'article 6 - Droit à un procès équitable (Article 6 - Procédure civile;Article 6-1 - Accès à un tribunal;Droits et ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AL-DULIMI AND MONTANA MANAGEMENT INC. v. SWITZERLAND - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)

  Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v. Switzerland

  [10.12.2014]

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [FRE]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 5809/08
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 5809/08

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (57)

• EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 45036/98

  Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi ./. Irland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 5809/08

  As to the merits of the case, the Chamber examined the case in the light of the criterion of equivalent protection, as defined in the Court's settled case-law (see, in particular, Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, §§ 152-157, ECHR 2005-VI; M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, § 338, ECHR 2011; and Michaud v. France, no. 12323/11, §§ 102-104, ECHR 2012).

  The "equivalent protection" test was defined in the case of Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland ([GC], no. 45036/98, ECHR 2005-VI) and has been used in various cases since then (see, in particular, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, § 338, ECHR 2011, and Michaud v. France, no. 12323/11, §§ 102-104, ECHR 2012).

  In order to reconcile this stance with the reality of international cooperation, the Court has held that State action taken in compliance with such international legal obligations is justified as long as the relevant organisation is considered to protect fundamental rights, both as regards the substantive guarantees offered and the mechanisms controlling their observance, in a manner which can be considered at least equivalent to the protection provided by the Convention (see, for example, M. & Co. v. the Federal Republic of Germany, no. 13258/87, Commission Decision of 9 February 1990, Decisions and Reports 64, p. 145; Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, §§ 152-155, ECHR 2005-VI ("Bosphorus"); Behrami and Behrami v. France and Saramati v. France, Germany and Norway (dec.) [GC], nos.

  See Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, ECHR 2005-VI ("Bosphorus").

• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 5809/08

  In other words, the Court may not create by way of interpretation of Article 6 § 1 a substantive right which has no legal basis in the State concerned (see, for example, Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 65, Series A no. 294-B, and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 119, ECHR 2005-X).

  It would not be consistent with the rule of law in a democratic society or with the basic principle underlying Article 6 § 1 - namely that civil claims must be capable of being submitted to a judge for adjudication - if a State could, without restraint or control by the Convention enforcement bodies, remove from the jurisdiction of the courts a whole range of civil claims or confer immunities from liability on categories of persons (see Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 65, Series A no. 294-B).

  Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 57, Series A no. 93, and Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 65, Series A no. 294-B.

• EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 65542/12

  STICHTING MOTHERS OF SREBRENICA AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 5809/08

  The Court itself had recognised in its case-law that the immunity of the States and of the United Nations, respectively, could constitute a justified obstacle to access to the courts (the Government referred, in particular, to Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, ECHR 2001-XI, and Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65542/12, ECHR 2013).

  The same conclusion was reached in the case of Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and Others v. the Netherlands ((dec.), no. 65542/12, § 154, ECHR 2013), where the Court held as follows:.

  Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65542/12, 27 June 2013.

 
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 5809/08

  In this way, Article 6 § 1 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 Cudak v. Lithuania [GC], no. 15869/02, § 54, ECHR 2010; Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18; and Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 43, ECHR 2001-VIII).

  At the same time, Article 6 of the Convention prescribed a right to a fair hearing which, according to the Court's jurisprudence, included "[t]he principle whereby a civil claim must be capable of being submitted to a judge" (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 35, Series A no. 18).

  Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 35, Series A no. 18.

• EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 12323/11

  MICHAUD v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 5809/08

  As to the merits of the case, the Chamber examined the case in the light of the criterion of equivalent protection, as defined in the Court's settled case-law (see, in particular, Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, §§ 152-157, ECHR 2005-VI; M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, § 338, ECHR 2011; and Michaud v. France, no. 12323/11, §§ 102-104, ECHR 2012).

  The "equivalent protection" test was defined in the case of Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland ([GC], no. 45036/98, ECHR 2005-VI) and has been used in various cases since then (see, in particular, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, § 338, ECHR 2011, and Michaud v. France, no. 12323/11, §§ 102-104, ECHR 2012).

  71412/01 and 78166/01, § 145, 2 May 2007 ("Behrami"); and Michaud v. France, no. 12323/11, §§ 102-104, ECHR 2012).

• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 5809/08

  In this way, Article 6 § 1 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 Cudak v. Lithuania [GC], no. 15869/02, § 54, ECHR 2010; Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18; and Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 43, ECHR 2001-VIII).

  Ibid., §§ 68-74, and Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 48, ECHR 2001-VIII.

• EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 73274/01

  CONNOLLY c. 15 ETATS MEMBRES DE L'UNION EUROPEENNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 5809/08

  For example, the principle of equivalent protection has been applied differently in EU-related cases concerning labour disputes within the European Commission (see Connolly v. 15 member States of the European Union (dec.), no. 73274/01, 9 December 2008, and Andreasen v. the United Kingdom and 26 other member States of the European Union (dec.), no. 28827/11, 31 March 2015), the regular enforcement of EU acts (see Bosphorus, cited above; Cooperatieve Producentenorganisatie van de Nederlandse Kokkelvisserij U.A. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 13645/05, ECHR 2009; and Povse v. Austria (dec.), no. 3890/11, 18 June 2013) or the application of primary EU law (see Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, ECHR 1999-I).

  Connolly v. 15 member States of the European Union (dec.), no. 73274/01, 9 December 2008.

• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 26083/94

  WAITE AND KENNEDY v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 5809/08

  Furthermore, a limitation of the right of access to a court, including jurisdictional immunity under international law, will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Cudak, cited above, § 55; Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, § 59, ECHR 1999-I; and Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and Others, cited above, § 139).

  Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, § 63, ECHR 1999-I.

• EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

  LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 5809/08

  The Court further observes that, the Convention being a constitutional instrument of European public order (see Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, § 75, Series A no. 310, and Al-Skeini and Others, cited above, § 141), the States Parties are required, in that context, to ensure a level of scrutiny of Convention compliance which, at the very least, preserves the foundations of that public order.

  See Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, § 75, Series A no. 310.

• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 36357/04

  BERIC AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 5809/08

  36357/04 and 25 others, 16 October 2007; Al-Jedda, cited above; and Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, ECHR 2012), and the staff dispute settlement procedure in the UN's relevant internal bodies, on the other (see Perez, cited above).

  36357/04 and 25 others, § 30, 16 October 2007.

• EGMR, 09.09.2008 - 73250/01

  BOIVIN v. 34 MEMBER STATES OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
• EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 71412/01

  A. B. und B. B. gegen Frankreich und der Individualbeschwerde Nr. 78166/01 von R. …
• EuGH, 03.09.2008 - C-402/05

  und Sicherheitspolitik - DER GERICHTSHOF ERKLÄRT DIE VERORDNUNG, MIT DER DIE …
• EuG, 21.09.2005 - T-306/01

  und Sicherheitspolitik - DAS GERICHT ERSTER INSTANZ ERLÄSST SEINE ERSTEN URTEILE …
• EuG, 21.09.2005 - T-315/01

  Kadi / Rat und Kommission - Gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik - …
• EKMR, 09.09.1998 - 39025/97

  LENZING AG v. GERMANY
• EuGH, 28.06.2005 - C-189/02

  DER GERICHTSHOF BESTÄTIGT DIE URTEILE DES GERICHTS ERSTER INSTANZ ZUR EXISTENZ …
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 27996/06

  SEJDIC ET FINCI c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE
• EKMR, 09.02.1990 - 13258/87

  M. & Co. v. the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
• EKMR, 09.09.1998 - 38817/97

  LENZING AG c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 15346/89

  MASSON AND VAN ZON v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 60041/08

  GREENS ET M.T. c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EuGH, 21.09.2000 - C-462/98

  Mediocurso / Kommission
• EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

  VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 61603/00

  Konventionskonforme Auslegung des deutschen (Zivil-)Rechts …
• EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 11157/04

  ANCHUGOV AND GLADKOV v. RUSSIA
• EuG, 11.06.2014 - T-293/12

  Das Gericht erklärt die Aufnahme der Syria International Islamic Bank in die …
• EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 40382/04

  R. INC. ./. Deutschland
• EuGH, 12.06.2014 - C-314/13

  Peftiev - Vorabentscheidungsersuchen - Gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik - …
• EuGH, 24.10.1996 - C-32/95

  Kommission / Lisrestal u.a.
• EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 3890/11

  POVSE v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 33917/12

  DJOKABA LAMBI LONGA v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 22.11.1995 - 20166/92

  S.W. c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 47273/99

  BELES AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EuG, 04.06.2014 - T-68/12

  Hemmati / Rat
• EuGH, 13.03.2007 - C-432/05

  Unibet - Grundsatz des gerichtlichen Rechtsschutzes - Nationale …
• EuGH, 13.03.2012 - C-376/10

  und Sicherheitspolitik - Sanktionen, die der Rat gegen ein Drittland erlassen …
• EuGH, 22.11.2012 - C-277/11

  M. - Vorabentscheidungsersuchen - Gemeinsames europäisches Asylsystem - …
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 28827/11

  ANDREASEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM AND 26 OTHER MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
• EuGH, 23.04.2013 - C-478/11

  und Sicherheitspolitik - Der Gerichtshof weist die Rechtsmittel zurück, die Herr …
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 71525/01

  DUMITRU POPESCU c. ROUMANIE (N° 2)
• EuGH, 21.11.1991 - C-269/90

  Technische Universität München / Hauptzollamt München-Mitte
• EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 415/07

  Klausecker gegen Deutschland
• EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

  ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI
• BVerfG, 22.10.1986 - 2 BvR 197/83

  Solange II
• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 29750/09

  HASSAN c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EuG, 30.09.2010 - T-85/09

  Kadi / Kommission: Verordnung, mit der die Gelder von Yassin Abdullah Kadi …
• EuGH, 22.11.2007 - C-525/04

  Spanien / Lenzing - Rechtsmittel - Staatliche Beihilfen - Nichteintreibung von …
• EuG, 12.12.2006 - T-228/02

  und Sicherheitspolitik - DAS GERICHT ERKLÄRT DEN BESCHLUSS DES RATES FÜR NICHTIG, …
• EuG, 04.06.2014 - T-67/12

  Sina Bank / Rat
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 37575/04

  BOULOIS c. LUXEMBOURG
• EuG, 04.06.2014 - T-66/12

  Sedghi und Azizi / Rat
• EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 13645/05

  COOPERATIEVE PRODUCENTENORGANISATIE VAN DE NEDERLANDSE KOKKELVISSERIJ U.A. v. THE …
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EuG, 12.07.2006 - T-253/02

  und Sicherheitspolitik - DAS GERICHT MACHT WEITERE DARLEGUNGEN ZU DEN RECHTEN DER …

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 11.02.2021 - C-579/19

  Food Standards Agency

  79 Vgl. Urteil des EGMR vom 21. Juni 2016, Al-Dulimi und Montana Management Inc./Schweiz (CE:ECHR:2016:0621JUD000580908, Nr. 130).
• EuG, 22.11.2018 - T-274/16

  Das Gericht bestätigt den Beschluss des Rates, die Guthaben von Mitgliedern der …

  c. Suisse, CE:ECHR:2016:0621JUD000580908, points 145 et 146].