Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 22.11.2017 - 36500/05 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,45417) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SALONTAJI-DROBNJAK CONTRE LA SERBIE
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SALONTAJI-DROBNJAK AGAINST SERBIA
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 36500/05
- EGMR, 22.11.2017 - 36500/05
Wird zitiert von ... (2)
- EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 55949/13
HERACLES S.A. GENERAL CEMENT COMPANY c. GRÈCE
Ce « droit à un tribunal ", dont le droit d'accès ne constitue qu'un aspect, est garanti à toute personne qui considère de manière défendable que l'ingérence dans l'exercice de ses droits civils est arbitraire et prétend qu'elle n'a pas eu de possibilité de se plaindre de ce grief auprès d'un tribunal présentant les garanties de l'article 6 § 1 (voir, notamment, Roche c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 32555/96, § 117, CEDH 2005-X, et Salontaji-Drobnjak c. Serbie, no 36500/05, § 132, 13 octobre 2009). - EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 56578/11
A.A.K. c. TÜRKIYE
L'étendue de la marge d'appréciation dont les autorités jouissent dans ce domaine dépendra donc de la qualité du processus décisionnel: si la procédure a été gravement déficiente pour une raison ou pour une autre, les conclusions des autorités internes sont plus sujettes à caution (voir Principe 1 - paragraphe 46 ci-dessus ; Görgülü c. Allemagne, no 74969/01, § 52, 26 février 2004, Chtoukatourov c. Russie, no 44009/05, §§ 87-89, CEDH 2008, Berková c. Slovaquie, no 67149/01, § 165, 24 mars 2009, Salontaji-Drobnjak c. Serbie, no 36500/05, §§ 141-143, 13 octobre 2009, Ümit Bilgiç, précité, § 113, Lashin c. Russie, no 33117/02, §§ 79 et 80, 22 janvier 2013, Ivinovic c. Croatie, no 13006/13, §§ 36 et 37, 18 septembre 2014, et A.N., précité, §§ 116-118).
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 36500/05 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,69417) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Salontaji-Drobnjak gegen Serbien
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 36500/05
- EGMR, 22.11.2017 - 36500/05
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (10)
- EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71
Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 36500/05
In laying down such regulations, the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation (see, mutatis mutandis, the Klass and Others v. Germany judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 23, § 49). - EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 36500/05
In its Golder v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1975, the Court held that Article 6 § 1 "secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal" (§ 36, Series A no. 18). - EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73
WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 36500/05
However, the Court has consistently held that the "procedural" guarantees under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 are broadly similar to those under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for instance, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 60, Series A no. 33; Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, judgment of 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107; Kampanis v. Greece, 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B; Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 103, 26 July 2001).
- EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96
ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 36500/05
This "right to a court", of which the right of access is an aspect, may be relied on by anyone who considers on arguable grounds that an interference with the exercise of his or her (civil) rights is unlawful and complains that no possibility was afforded to submit that claim to a court meeting the requirements of Article 6 § 1 (see, inter alia, Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 117, ECHR 2005-X). - EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83
BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 36500/05
Having regard to the above and notwithstanding its readiness to accept the Government's position that the various expert reports had not, per se, been mutually exclusive (see paragraphs 123, 84, 86, 92 and 97 above, in that order), the Court concludes that the proceedings in question, "taken as a whole" (see Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, 6 December 1988, § 68, Series A no. 146), have not satisfied the requirements of a fair hearing. - EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78
ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 36500/05
Certainly, the right of access to a court is not absolute but may be subject to limitations (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 57, Series A no. 93). - EGMR, 05.11.1981 - 7215/75
X v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 36500/05
Lastly, the applicable domestic legislation does not seem to provide for a periodical judicial re-assessment of the applicant's condition (see paragraphs 94 and 104 above; see also paragraph 107, Principle 14, above), the key, almost discretionary, role in this regard having instead been granted to the SCC (see paragraphs 79 and 80 above, as well as paragraph 124 above and, mutatis mutandis, X v. the United Kingdom, 5 November 1981, §§ 53 and 54, Series A no. 46). - EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82
SANCHEZ-REISSE c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 36500/05
However, the Court has consistently held that the "procedural" guarantees under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 are broadly similar to those under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for instance, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 60, Series A no. 33; Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, judgment of 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107; Kampanis v. Greece, 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B; Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 103, 26 July 2001). - EGMR, 23.02.1984 - 9019/80
LUBERTI v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 36500/05
It is in the first place for the national authorities to evaluate the evidence adduced in a particular case; the Court's task is to review under the Convention the decisions of those authorities (see Luberti v. Italy, judgment of 23 February 1984, Series A no. 75, § 27). - EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91
KAMPANIS v. GREECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 36500/05
However, the Court has consistently held that the "procedural" guarantees under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 are broadly similar to those under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for instance, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 60, Series A no. 33; Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, judgment of 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107; Kampanis v. Greece, 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B; Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 103, 26 July 2001).