Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WIECZOREK v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1, :, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 A... rt. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Government's request to strike the application out of the list rejected Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of P1-1 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 18176/05
• EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 18176/05

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 18176/05

  It may therefore be acceptable to impose conditions on the grant of legal aid based, inter alia, on the financial situation of the litigant or his or her prospects of success in the proceedings (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 62, ECHR 2005-II).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 18176/05

  The requisite fair balance will not be struck where the person concerned bears an individual and excessive burden (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, §§ 69-74, Series A no. 52).
• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80

  GILLOW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 18176/05

  A requirement that an appellant be represented by a qualified lawyer before the court of cassation, as in the present case, cannot in itself be seen as contrary to Article 6. This requirement is clearly compatible with the characteristics of the Supreme Court as the highest court examining appeals on points of law and it is a common feature of the legal systems in several member States of the Council of Europe (see Gillow v. the United Kingdom, 24 November 1986, § 69, Series A no. 109; Vacher v. France, 17 December 1996, §§ 24 and 28, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI; Tabor v. Poland, no. 12825/02, § 42, 27 June 2006; Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, § 129, 22 March 2007; and Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, § 106, 22 March 2007).

 
• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 18176/05

  65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2005-X).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 18176/05

  Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I, with further references).
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 46800/99

  DEL SOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 18176/05

  The Court points out at the outset that there is no obligation under the Convention to make legal aid available for disputes (contestations) in civil proceedings, as there is a clear distinction between the wording of Article 6 § 3 (c), which guarantees the right to free legal assistance under certain conditions in criminal proceedings, and of Article 6 § 1, which makes no reference to legal assistance (see Del Sol v. France, no. 46800/99, § 20, ECHR 2002-II, and Essaadi v. France, no. 49384/99, § 30, 26 February 2002).
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 24846/94

  ZIELINSKI ET PRADAL & GONZALEZ ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 18176/05

  In this respect, however, the Court reiterates that divergences in case-law are an inherent consequence of any judicial system which is based on a network of trial and appeal courts with authority over the area of their territorial jurisdiction, and that the role of a supreme court is precisely to resolve conflicts between decisions of the courts below (see Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and Others v. France [GC], nos. 24846/94 and 34165/96 to 34173/96, § 59, ECHR 1999-VII).
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 18176/05

  They have been described as follows (in James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 37, Series A no. 98; see also Belvedere Alberghiera S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 31524/96, § 51, ECHR 2000-VI):.
• EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 60669/00

  KJARTAN ÁSMUNDSSON c. ISLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 18176/05

  Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention does not guarantee, as such, any right to a pension of a particular amount (see, for example, Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, § 39, ECHR 2004-IX, and Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 12.10.2000 - 43440/98

  JANKOVIC c. CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 18176/05

  Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention does not guarantee, as such, any right to a pension of a particular amount (see, for example, Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, § 39, ECHR 2004-IX, and Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05

  RASMUSSEN v. POLAND
• EGMR, 15.06.1999 - 34610/97

  DOMALEWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 27265/95

  TERAZZI S.R.L. c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 22.09.2005 - 75255/01

  GOUDSWAARD-VAN DER LANS v. THE NETHERLANDS