Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TSERKVA SELA SOSULIVKA v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (applicability) Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2008 - 37878/02

  It referred in this respect to the Court's case-law in Golder v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, §§ 35-36).

  The Court reiterates that, under its case-law, 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 Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 18, § 36).

• EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

  König ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2008 - 37878/02

  Furthermore, whether or not a right is to be regarded as civil within the meaning of this expression in the Convention must be determined by reference to the substantive content and effects of the right - and not only its legal classification - under the domestic law of the State concerned (see König v. Germany, judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, § 89).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 23805/94

  BELLET c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2008 - 37878/02

  For the right of access to be effective, an individual must have a clear, practical opportunity to challenge an act that is an interference with his or her rights (see Bellet v. France, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 333-B, p. 42, § 36).
• EGMR, 27.10.1987 - 10426/83

  PUDAS c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2008 - 37878/02

  The Court notes that according to the principles enunciated in its case-law (see, inter alia, Pudas v. Sweden, judgment of 27 October 1987, Series A no. 125-A, p. 14, § 31), the dispute over a "right" which can be said at least on arguable grounds to be recognised under domestic law, must be genuine and serious; it may relate not only to the actual existence of the right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise; and, finally, the result of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question.

• EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 58911/00

  Rechtssache L. e.V. u.a gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Überdies hat der Gerichtshof jüngst festgestellt, dass das Recht, im Eigentum des Staates stehende Räumlichkeiten für religiöse Zeremonien zu nutzen, für die "zivilrechtlichen Ansprüche und Verpflichtungen" des betreffenden Beschwerdeführers als unmittelbar erheblich anzusehen ist und somit die Anwendbarkeit von Artikel 6 begründet (siehe Rechtssache Tserkva Sela Sosulivka ./. Ukraine , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 37878/02, Rdnr. 42, 28. Februar 2008).
• EGMR, 05.03.2024 - 64220/19

  Föderation der Aleviten-Gemeinden in Österreich ./. Österreich

  In Leela Förderkreis e.V. and Others (cited above, § 46-47), a case concerning religious associations, the Court drew attention to its case-law as to the "civil" character of the right to enjoy a good reputation and referred to the case of Tserkva Sela Sosulivka v. Ukraine (no. 37878/02, § 42, 28 February 2008), in which it had held that the right to use State-owned premises for religious ceremonies, as provided for by the domestic law, had to be considered directly decisive for the respective applicant's "civil rights and obligations", thus leading to the applicability of Article 6. It stated that it did not find it necessary to determine whether the right to freedom of religion in general had to be considered a "civil right" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1.
• EGMR, 11.04.2024 - 32526/13

  GUSELNYKOV v. UKRAINE

  In the leading case of Tserkva Sela Sosulivka v. Ukraine (no. 37878/02, §§ 51-53, 28 February 2008), the Court already found a violation in respect of the issue similar to that in the present case.

  37878/02,.

 
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 15766/03

  Oršuš u.a. ./. Kroatien

  En outre, le droit des requérants de ne pas être victime de discrimination pour des motifs de race est expressément garanti à l'article 14 § 1 de la Constitution et donc sanctionnable devant les juridictions civiles ordinaires de l'ordre juridique interne (voir, mutatis mutandis, Tserkva Sela Sossoulivka c. Ukraine, no 37878/02, § 42, 28 février 2008, et Gülmez c. Turquie, no 16330/02, § 29, 20 mai 2008).
• EGMR, 19.05.2015 - 76943/11

  PAROISSE GRÉCO-CATHOLIQUE LUPENI ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  En l'espèce, la Cour constate que l'article 3 du décret-loi no 126/1990, tel que modifié successivement par l'ordonnance no 64/2004 et par la loi no 182/2005, offrait aux requérants la possibilité d'agir en justice pour établir la situation juridique du lieu de culte (voir, a contrario, Tserkva Sela Sossoulivka c. Ukraine, no 37878/02, § 51, 28 février 2008).
• EGMR, 23.11.2021 - 40444/17

  KOOPERATIV NEPTUN SERVIS c. RUSSIE

  Enfin, les refus successifs de plusieurs juridictions de trancher un litige sur le fond s'analyse en un déni de justice qui porte atteinte à la substance même du droit à un tribunal garanti par l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (Beneficio Cappella Paolini, précité, § 29, Tserkva Sela Sossoulivka c. Ukraine, no 37878/02, §§ 51-53, 28 février 2008, et Bezymyannaya c. Russie, no 21851/03, §§ 30-34, 22 décembre 2009).
• EGMR, 12.10.2023 - 65647/12

  KOPCHINSKIY v. UKRAINE

  The general principles concerning access to a court in a situation where the Ukrainian courts found that they did not have jurisdiction to decide on the matter have been summarised in Tserkva Sela Sosulivka v. Ukraine (no. 37878/02, §§ 51-53, 28 February 2008).
• EGMR, 02.03.2021 - 10698/18

  VORONKOV c. RUSSIE (N° 2)

  La Cour rappelle enfin sa jurisprudence selon laquelle le refus successif de plusieurs juridictions de trancher un litige sur le fond s'analyse en un déni de justice qui porte atteinte à la substance même du droit à un tribunal garanti par l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (Beneficio Cappella Paolini c. Saint-Marin, no 40786/98, § 29, CEDH 2004-VIII (extraits), Tserkva Sela Sossoulivka c. Ukraine, no 37878/02, §§ 51-53, 28 février 2008, et Bezymyannaya, précité, §§ 30-34).
• EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 25904/06

  LESJAK v. CROATIA

  In the Court's view, that situation amounts to a denial of justice which impaired the very essence of the applicant's right of access to a court as secured by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Beneficio Cappella Paolini v. San Marino, no. 40786/98, § 29, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts), and Tserkva Sela Sosulivka v. Ukraine, no. 37878/02, § 40, 28 February 2008).