Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JOVANOVIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Access to court) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Jovanovic v. Serbia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 32299/08
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 32299/08

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (19)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 32299/08

  Having regard to its findings above (see paragraph 50 above) and given that Article 6 § 1 is to be considered as constituting a lex specialis in relation to Article 13 (see, for example, Sukhorubchenko v. Russia, no. 69315/01, § 60, 10 February 2005, and Jalloh v. Germany (dec.), no. 54810/00, 26 October 2004), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility or the merits of the applicant's identical complaint made under Article 13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Milanovic v. Serbia, no. 44614/07, § 103, 14 December 2010).
• EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 32299/08

  The Court reiterates that although Article 6 of the Convention does not compel the Contracting States to set up courts of appeal or of cassation (see, among other authorities, Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, §§ 25-26, Series A no. 11), where such courts exist the guarantees contained in Article 6 must be complied with, inter alia, by ensuring effective access to the courts.
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 32299/08

  As regards the complaint under Article 6 § 1, the Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by the national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I; and Cornelis v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 994/03, ECHR 2004-V (extracts)), as it is not a court of appeal - or, as is sometimes said, a "fourth instance" (see, among many other authorities, Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX).

• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 32299/08

  In the Court's view, although the Government have not raised an objection as to the Court's competence ratione temporis, this issue nevertheless calls for its consideration (see, mutatis mutandis, Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 25.11.1993 - 14282/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 32299/08

  It is noted from the outset that the applicant's action concerned his alleged real estate entitlement and that his complaint, therefore, clearly falls within the scope of Article 6 (see, mutatis mutandis, Zander v. Sweden, 25 November 1993, § 27, Series A no. 279-B).
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 28743/03

  MELNITCHOUK c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 32299/08

  As regards the complaint under Article 6 § 1, the Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by the national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I; and Cornelis v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 994/03, ECHR 2004-V (extracts)), as it is not a court of appeal - or, as is sometimes said, a "fourth instance" (see, among many other authorities, Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX).
• EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 25165/94

  AKDENIZ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 32299/08

  Being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of any case before it, the Court considers that the above complaint falls to be examined under Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention only (see Akdeniz v. Turkey, no. 25165/94, § 88, 31 May 2005, and Dobric v. Serbia, nos.
• EGMR, 15.02.2000 - 38695/97

  GARCÍA MANIBARDO c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 32299/08

  Nevertheless, the "right to a court", of which the right of access is one aspect, is not absolute; it is subject to limitations permitted by implication, in particular where the conditions of admissibility of an appeal are concerned since by its very nature it calls for regulation by the State, which enjoys a certain margin of appreciation in this regard (see, for example, García Manibardo v. Spain, no. 38695/97, § 36, ECHR 2000-II, and Mortier v. France, no. 42195/98, § 33, 31 July 2001).
• EGMR, 25.05.2004 - 994/03

  CORNELIS c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 32299/08

  As regards the complaint under Article 6 § 1, the Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by the national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I; and Cornelis v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 994/03, ECHR 2004-V (extracts)), as it is not a court of appeal - or, as is sometimes said, a "fourth instance" (see, among many other authorities, Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX).
• EGMR, 21.11.2002 - 36747/02

  ARSLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 32299/08

  In the absence of explanations of an interval, of at least several days, between the date on which the initial submission was written and the date on which it was posted, the latter is to be considered the date of introduction of an application (see Arslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36747/02, decision of 21 November 2002, ECHR 2002-X (extracts) and Ruzicková v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 15630/05, 16 September 2008), and not the date stamp indicating the application's receipt by the Court (Kipritçi v. Turkey, no. 14294/04, § 18, 3 June 2008).
• EGMR, 10.02.2005 - 69315/01

  SUKHORUBCHENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 2611/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 31.07.2001 - 42195/98

  MORTIER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 14294/04

  KIPRITCI c. TURQUIE
• EKMR, 16.04.1998 - 31806/96

  DIMOVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 16.09.2008 - 15630/05

  RUZICKOVÁ c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
• EuGH, 16.08.1989 - 57/89

  Vorläufiger Rechtsschutz - Einstweilige Anordnungen - Voraussetzungen - …
• EuGH - 69/82 (Verfahren ohne Entscheidung erledigt)

  Kommission / Frankreich
• EuGH - 72/82 (Verfahren ohne Entscheidung erledigt)

  Rat / Parlament

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen