Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TCHAGHIASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Partly struck out of the list Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  TCHAGHIASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (15)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01

  Budweiser-Streit

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 19312/07

  Lastly, the Court notes that the applicant's complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the rejection of his claim for damages by the domestic courts is manifestly ill-founded as well (see, among many others, Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 65, ECHR 2007 I), and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 28.01.2003 - 34763/02

  BURG et AUTRES contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 19312/07

  Indeed, the Court has consistently ruled on various different occasions that, where a preliminary procedure for the examination and admission of an appeal on points of law is concerned, a domestic appellate court cannot be obliged under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to give extensive reasoning when it simply applies a specific legal provision to dismiss an appeal as having no prospects of success (see, for instance, Nersesyan, cited above, § 23 and 24; Burg and Others v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, ECHR 2003-II; Gorou v. Greece (no. 2) [GC], no. 12686/03, § 41, 20 March 2009; Stepenska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 24079/02, 12 June 2006; Glender v. Sweden (dec.), no. 28070/03, 6 September 2005; Jaczkó v. Hungary, no. 40109/03, § 29, 18 July 2006; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 106, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts); Kukkonen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 47628/06, § 24, 13 January 2009; and Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009).
• EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 28953/03

  SULWINSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 19312/07

  To this end, the Court examined carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).

• EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 18369/07

  JOSIPOVIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 19312/07

  Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the part of the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
• EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 38621/97

  ZEHNALOVÁ ET ZEHNAL c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 19312/07

  The Court has established in a number of cases its practice concerning complaints about the scope and extent of the respondent State's positive obligations under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention with respect to people with physical disabilities (compare, in particular, with Botta v. Italy, 24 February 1998, § 33-35, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; Zehnalová and Zehnal v. the Czech Republic ((dec.), no. 38621/97, ECHR 2002 V; and also see Pentiacova and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 14462/03, ECHR 2005-I; and also Sentges v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 27677/02, 8 July 2003).
• EGMR, 04.01.2005 - 14462/03

  PENTIACOVA ET AUTRES c. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 19312/07

  The Court has established in a number of cases its practice concerning complaints about the scope and extent of the respondent State's positive obligations under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention with respect to people with physical disabilities (compare, in particular, with Botta v. Italy, 24 February 1998, § 33-35, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; Zehnalová and Zehnal v. the Czech Republic ((dec.), no. 38621/97, ECHR 2002 V; and also see Pentiacova and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 14462/03, ECHR 2005-I; and also Sentges v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 27677/02, 8 July 2003).
• EGMR, 03.12.2002 - 48221/99

  BERGER v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 19312/07

  However, the Court, in the light of its extensive similar case-law on the matter, considers that the mere fact that the applicant's appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible on the ground that it lacked significant pecuniary and/or legal interest cannot be considered, in a situation where he had had the benefit of fully adversarial proceedings on the merits before the first instance and appellate courts, either as an unreasonable limitation of the right to have access to court or, more generally, as a lack of due process under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (compare, for instance, with Nersesyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 15371/07, §§ 21-25, 19 January 2010; Venema and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 35731/97, 29 January 2002; and also Berger v. France, no. 48221/99, § 30-39, ECHR 2002-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 38736/04

  FC MRETEBI v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 19312/07

  The domestic courts were best placed to assess the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case and to interpret and apply the rules of substantive and procedural law (see, among many other authorities, FC Mretebi v. Georgia, no. 38736/04, § 31, 31 July 2007), and the relevant domestic decisions do not disclose any manifestly arbitrary reasoning (cf., a contrario, Donadze v. Georgia, no. 74644/01, § 32, 7 March 2006).
• EGMR, 08.07.2003 - 27677/02

  SENTGES v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 19312/07

  The Court has established in a number of cases its practice concerning complaints about the scope and extent of the respondent State's positive obligations under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention with respect to people with physical disabilities (compare, in particular, with Botta v. Italy, 24 February 1998, § 33-35, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; Zehnalová and Zehnal v. the Czech Republic ((dec.), no. 38621/97, ECHR 2002 V; and also see Pentiacova and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 14462/03, ECHR 2005-I; and also Sentges v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 27677/02, 8 July 2003).
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 15371/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 19312/07

  However, the Court, in the light of its extensive similar case-law on the matter, considers that the mere fact that the applicant's appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible on the ground that it lacked significant pecuniary and/or legal interest cannot be considered, in a situation where he had had the benefit of fully adversarial proceedings on the merits before the first instance and appellate courts, either as an unreasonable limitation of the right to have access to court or, more generally, as a lack of due process under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (compare, for instance, with Nersesyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 15371/07, §§ 21-25, 19 January 2010; Venema and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 35731/97, 29 January 2002; and also Berger v. France, no. 48221/99, § 30-39, ECHR 2002-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 01.09.2009 - 38308/05

  WNUK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 40109/03

  JACZKO v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 28070/03

  GLENDER v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 47628/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.06.2006 - 24079/02

  STEPENSKA v. UKRAINE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08

  TORTLADZE v. GEORGIA

  As regards the applicant's complaint about the lack of access to the Supreme Court, the Court recalls that the same issue has already been examined in the context of the relevant Georgian procedural law and practice and was found to have been compatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Kadagishvili v. Georgia, no. 12391/06, § 175, 14 May 2020; Kobiashvili, cited above, § 76; Kuparadze v. Georgia, no. 30742/09, §§ 75-77, 21 September 2017; and Tchaghiashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 19312/07, § 34, 2 September 2014).
• EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 38951/13

  ABRAMYAN v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

  In these circumstances, the Court considers that the dismissal of their cassation appeal by a single judge of the Supreme Court cannot be considered as an unreasonable limitation of their right to have access to court (see Kart v. Turkey [GC], no. 8917/05, § 79, ECHR 2009 (extracts), and Tchaghishvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 19312/07, § 34, 2 September 2014, with numerous further references).
• EGMR, 14.03.2019 - 36416/06

  [FRE]

  In so far as the applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had been denied access to the Supreme Court, the Court reiterates that the same issue has already been examined in the context of the relevant Georgian procedural law and practice and was found to have been, in similar factual circumstances, fully compatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Kuparadze v. Georgia, no. 30743/09, §§ 75-77, 21 September 2017; and compare, mutatis mutandis, Tchaghiashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 19312/07, § 34, 2 September 2014.) It thus finds that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and rejects it pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3(a) and 4 of the Convention.

• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 17716/08

  [ENG]

  უáƒ-ენáƒ�ეáƒ. áƒ.áƒ�áƒ.áƒ�მáƒ�რთლáƒ�áƒ-ე ხელმიáƒ.áƒ�áƒáƒ•áƒ“áƒ�მáƒ�ბáƒ�áƒ.თáƒ�ნ დáƒ�კáƒ�ვშირებით, áƒ.áƒ�áƒ.áƒ�მáƒ�რთლáƒ� კიდევ ერთხელ áƒ�ცხáƒ�დებáƒ., რáƒ�მ იგივე áƒ.áƒ�კითხი უკვე იყáƒ� გáƒ�ნხილული áƒ.áƒ�ქáƒ�რთველáƒ�áƒ. შეáƒ.áƒ�ბáƒ�მიáƒ.ი áƒ.áƒ�პრáƒ�ცეáƒ.áƒ� კáƒ�ნáƒ�ნმდებლáƒ�ბიáƒ.áƒ� დáƒ� პრáƒ�ქტიკიáƒ. კáƒ�ნტექáƒ.ტში დáƒ� დáƒ�áƒ�დგინáƒ�, რáƒ�მ მáƒ.გáƒ�ვáƒ.ი ფáƒ�ქტáƒ�ბრივი გáƒ�რემáƒ�ებებიáƒ. áƒ�რáƒ.ებáƒ�ბიáƒ.áƒ�áƒ., [იáƒ.] áƒ.რულáƒ�დ იყáƒ� შეáƒ.áƒ�ბáƒ�მიáƒ.ი კáƒ�ნვენციიáƒ. მე-6 მუხლიáƒ. 1-ელ პუნქტთáƒ�ნ (იხ. ყუფáƒ�რáƒ�ძე áƒ.áƒ�ქáƒ�რთველáƒ�áƒ. áƒáƒ˜áƒœáƒ�áƒ�ღმდეგ (Kuparadze v. Georgia), N 30743/09, §§ 75-77, 21 áƒ.ექტემბერი 201 დáƒ� შეáƒ�დáƒ�რე, mutatis mutandis, ჭáƒ�ღიáƒ�შვილი áƒ.áƒ�ქáƒ�რთველáƒ�áƒ. áƒáƒ˜áƒœáƒ�áƒ�ღმდეგ (Tchaghiashvili v. Georgia) (გáƒ�ნჩინებáƒ�), N 19312/07, § 34, 2 áƒ.ექტემბერი 2014.).
• EGMR, 14.05.2020 - 12391/06

  KADAGISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  The Court has found on several occasions that the introduction and application of admissibility requirements in respect of appeals on points of law lodged with courts of cassation pursue a legitimate aim in the interests of good administration of justice (see Tchaghiashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 19312/07, § 34, 2 September 2014; Nersesyan, cited above, § 22, 19 January 2010; and Borisenko and Yerevanyan Bazalt Ltd v. Armenia (dec.), no. 18297/08, 14 April 2009).
• EGMR, 21.09.2017 - 30743/09

  KUPARADZE v. GEORGIA

  The Court has found on several occasions that the introduction and application of admissibility requirements in respect of appeals on points of law lodged with courts of cassation pursue a legitimate aim in the interests of good administration of justice (see Tchaghiashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 19312/07, § 34, 2 September 2014; Nersesyan, cited above, § 22; and Borisenko and Yerevanyan Bazalt Ltd v. Armenia (dec.), no. 18297/08, 14 April 2009).