Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GHERARDI MARTIRI v. SAN MARINO

  Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Abuse of the right of application;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GHERARDI MARTIRI v. SAN MARINO

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Zitiert selbst (27)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75529/01

  Verschleppter Prozess - Mann prozessiert seit 16 Jahren um Entschädigung nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 35511/20

  According to its case-law on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the "reasonableness" of the length of proceedings must be assessed in light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities, and what is at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among other authorities, Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 143, 29 November 2016; Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 19, ECHR 2000-IV; and Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 128, ECHR 2006-VII).
• EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

  König ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 35511/20

  The Court reiterates that the relevant period to take into account in the assessment of the length of proceedings normally covers the whole of the proceedings in question, including appeal proceedings (see König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, § 98 in fine, Series A no. 27) and extends right up to the decision which disposes of the dispute (see Poiss v. Austria, 23 April 1987, § 50, Series A no. 117).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01

  Budweiser-Streit

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 35511/20

  As to the remedial measures which the State can be required to provide in certain circumstances, the Court has held, in particular, that States were under an obligation to afford judicial procedures that offered the necessary procedural guarantees and therefore enabled the domestic courts and tribunals to adjudicate effectively and fairly any disputes between private persons (see, mutatis mutandis, Kotov, cited above, § 117; Sovtransavto Holding, cited above, § 96; Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 83, ECHR 2007-I; Freitag v. Germany, no. 71440/01, § 54, 19 July 2007; Kanevska v Ukraine, (dec.), no. 73944/11, § 45, 17 November 2020; and Antonopoulou, cited above, § 57).

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 35511/20

  According to its case-law on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the "reasonableness" of the length of proceedings must be assessed in light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities, and what is at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among other authorities, Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 143, 29 November 2016; Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 19, ECHR 2000-IV; and Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 128, ECHR 2006-VII).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97

  COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 35511/20

  According to its case-law on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the "reasonableness" of the length of proceedings must be assessed in light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities, and what is at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among other authorities, Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 143, 29 November 2016; Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 19, ECHR 2000-IV; and Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 128, ECHR 2006-VII).
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 20319/17

  BALSAMO v. SAN MARINO et 1 autre affaire

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 35511/20

  The articles also contained misleading information about these proceedings, but this could be the result of inadvertence or inexperience of court proceedings by the sources of the information (compare Podeschi, cited above, § 88, and Balsamo v. San Marino, nos. 20319/17 and 21414/17, § 48, 8 October 2019).
• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 17854/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 35511/20

  In ascertaining whether those requirements have been satisfied, the Court must take a comprehensive view of the applicable procedures (see Shesti Mai Engineering OOD and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 17854/04, § 79, 20 September 2011).
• EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 28369/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 35511/20

  While the Court has previously stated that the rule of confidentiality is absolute and does not allow for individual assessment of how much detail has been disclosed (see Abbasov and Others, cited above, § 28; Balenović v. Croatia (dec.), no. 28369/07, 30 September 2010; Lesnina Veletrgovina d.o.o. v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 37619/04, 2 March 2010; and, more recently, Ramkovski, cited above, § 41, and Mătăsaru v. Moldova, (dec.), no. 44743/08, 12 January 2020), having in mind the above-mentioned general purpose, the Court has also already stressed that it is always left to its discretion to assess whether disclosing of particular details from the friendly-settlement negotiations to the Court or any other third person constitutes, in the particular circumstances of a case, a breach of confidentiality resulting in declaring the application inadmissible as an abuse of the right of petition (see Stoilkovska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 29784/07, § 31, 18 July 2013; Lesnina Veletrgovina d.o.o., cited above; and Miroļubovs and Others, cited above, § 68).
• EGMR, 30.10.2018 - 22677/10

  KURSUN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 35511/20

  It follows that the measures which the State can be required to take in such a context can be preventive or remedial (see Kotov, cited above, § 113, and Kurşun v. Turkey, no. 22677/10, § 114, 30 October 2018).
• EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 33566/11

  RAMKOVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 35511/20

  At the same time, Rule 62 § 2 in fine also protects the Court and its own impartiality, by ensuring that should the friendly-settlement negotiations fail, their content will not prejudice the outcome of the contentious proceedings (see Heldenburg v. the Czech Republic (just satisfaction), no. 65546/09, § 25, 9 February 2017, and Ramkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 33566/11, § 42, 8 February 2018).
• EGMR, 30.03.2021 - 23189/09

  SARAÇ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 29784/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 49001/14

  DABIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 36609/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 44885/10

  TSONEV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 73944/11

  KANEVSKA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 38259/09

  CIPOLLETTA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 44743/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 46505/19

  ANTONOPOULOU c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 09.02.2017 - 65546/09

  HELDENBURG v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 46371/18

  OMDAHL v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 57990/10

  GORGADZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 56551/11
• EGMR, 25.09.2007 - 42165/02

  HADRABOVA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 66357/14

  PODESCHI v. SAN MARINO
• EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 40631/14

  AUSAD VALIMISED MTU v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 67037/09

  [FRE]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.05.2023 - 2394/22

  FERRARA AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  In principle any conduct on the part of an applicant which is manifestly contrary to the purpose of the right of individual application as provided for in the Convention and which impedes the proper functioning of the Court or the proper conduct of the proceedings before it can be considered an abuse of the right of application (see Miroļubovs and Others, cited above, § 65; Gherardi Martiri v. San Marino, no. 35511/20, § 74, 15 December 2022; Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, § 86, 13 April 2017; and Migliore and Others, cited above, § 30).
• EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 53050/21

  ZLATANOV v. BULGARIA

  It should also be noted in this connection that when it comes to interferences with possessions by private persons which are of a criminal nature, the positive obligations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 have been held to require an effective criminal investigation, but the possibility of civil proceedings against the alleged perpetrators has also been deemed sufficient to discharge those obligations - provided, naturally, that the civil claim has a reasonable prospect of success and that that prospect is not somehow jeopardised by the absence of an effective criminal investigation (see Blumberga v. Latvia, no. 70930/01, §§ 67-68, 14 October 2008; Zagrebačka banka d.d. v. Croatia, no. 39544/05, § 276, 12 December 2013; Gherardi Martiri v. San Marino, no. 35511/20, §§ 107-08, 15 December 2022; and Korotyuk v. Ukraine, no. 74663/17, §§ 36-37, 19 January 2023).
• EGMR, 15.05.2025 - 30085/13

  SEKSIMP GROUP SRL v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  In ascertaining whether those requirements have been satisfied, the Court must take a comprehensive view of the applicable procedures (see Gherardi Martiri v. San Marino, no. 35511/20, §§ 103-106 15 December 2022, with further references).

• EGMR, 27.05.2025 - 39860/19

  ARB SH.P.K. v. ALBANIA and 4 other applications

  However, the Court has also found violations of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases that did not call for any particular priority treatment, and notably disputes involving primarily financial interests (see, most recently, Altius Insurance LTD, cited above, § 88, and Gherardi Martiri v. San Marino, no. 35511/20, § 129, 15 December 2022).
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 13668/21

  MELIA v. GEORGIA

  As for the views expressed by the representative on the possible implications of the case-law references cited in the relevant questions, the Court does not consider that the discussion went beyond an expression of the representative's professional opinion regarding the subject of the present proceedings in response to the media interest at the time (see paragraph 70 above; see also Gherardi Martiri v. San Marino, no. 35511/20, §§ 82-83, 15 December 2022).
• EGMR, 19.05.2026 - 34199/23
  Rn. 10 None of the statements made by the applicant company were connected to the subject matter of the impugned domestic proceedings or to the complaints raised before the Court in the present application (contrast Gherardi Martiri v. San Marino, no. 35511/20, § 83, 15 December 2022).
• EGMR - 37684/15 (anhängig)

  GABRIELYAN v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE and 2 other applications

  What was the scope of the positive obligations of Ukraine under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, if any, with regard to the damage to the applicants' property in the present case (Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 332-35, ECHR 2004-VII; Blumberga v. Latvia, no. 70930/01, § 69, 14 October 2008; Gherardi Martiri v. San Marino, no. 35511/20, § 107, 15 December 2022; and Abukauskai v. Lithuania, no. 72065/17, §§ 54-8, 25 February 2020)? Did Ukraine comply with those obligations under this Article?.
• EGMR, 01.07.2025 - 2677/22

  SKOPIENÄ- AND AMBRASAS v. LITHUANIA

  It emphasises that it was not for the State to bear civil liability for the unlawful actions committed by third parties (see, mutatis mutandis, Gherardi Martiri v. San Marino, no. 35511/20, § 109, 15 December 2022).
• EGMR - 20713/18 (anhängig)

  SAVRUK v. UKRAINE

  (i) has there been an effective criminal investigation into the matter in compliance with that provision (see Nikolay Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 21743/15, §§ 54-76, 8 November 2022; Gherardi Martiri v. San Marino, no. 35511/20, §§ 105-08, 15 December 2022; and Korotyuk v. Ukraine, no. 74663/17, §§ 36-37 and 55-57, 19 January 2023)?.
• EGMR, 05.11.2024 - 51309/20

  IONIÈšA c. ROUMANIE

  Elle rappelle qu'il serait contraire à l'esprit de l'égalité des parties de considérer comme gratuite une allégation selon laquelle l'agent de l'État commet un abus de procédure, dès lors que les États peuvent, sans restriction aucune, soutenir qu'un requérant a abusé du droit de recours individuel et que sa requête est donc irrecevable (Gherardi Martiri c. Saint-Marin, no 35511/20, § 84 in fine, 15 décembre 2022).
• EGMR, 19.09.2023 - 3159/15

  ESTEVÃO OLIVEIRA c. PORTUGAL