Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TCACIUC AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 4227/02

  IORGA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 43695/05

  The procedure for lodging a request with a court for a re-examination, an exemption, a reduction, an instalment plan or to postpone the payment of judicial stamp duty, in force at the material time, was stipulated by Law no. 146/1997 on stamp duty, as amended by the Law no. 195/2004, in force from 29 May 2004, and Ministry of Justice Order no. 760/1999 on the enforcement of Law no. 146/1997, as well as by the former Code of Civil Procedure (see Iorga v. Romania, no. 4227/02, §§ 22-25, 25 January 2007, and Rău and Gâlea v. Romania (dec.), no. 43838/10, §§ 12-13, 3 October 2017).

  Cases concerning the imposition of court fees include, among other authorities, Kreuz v. Poland (no. 28249/95, §§ 52-60, ECHR 2001-VI) and Iorga v. Romania (no. 4227/02, §§ 35 and 39, 25 January 2007).

• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 43838/10

  RAU AND GÂLEA v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 43695/05

  The procedure for lodging a request with a court for a re-examination, an exemption, a reduction, an instalment plan or to postpone the payment of judicial stamp duty, in force at the material time, was stipulated by Law no. 146/1997 on stamp duty, as amended by the Law no. 195/2004, in force from 29 May 2004, and Ministry of Justice Order no. 760/1999 on the enforcement of Law no. 146/1997, as well as by the former Code of Civil Procedure (see Iorga v. Romania, no. 4227/02, §§ 22-25, 25 January 2007, and Rău and Gâlea v. Romania (dec.), no. 43838/10, §§ 12-13, 3 October 2017).

  In addition, the aforementioned system of court fees pursued a legitimate aim because it sought to limit abuses of process and to raise funds which could be used towards the budget of the justice system (see Iorga, cited above, § 41, and Rău and Gâlea v. Romania (dec.), no. 43838/10, § 35, 3 October 2017).

• EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 15/02

  DURUK ET YÜCEDAG c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 43695/05

  15/02/2007.

• KAG Aachen, 08.08.2006 - 18/06

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 43695/05

  18/06/2007.
• EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 28249/95

  KREUZ c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 43695/05

  Cases concerning the imposition of court fees include, among other authorities, Kreuz v. Poland (no. 28249/95, §§ 52-60, ECHR 2001-VI) and Iorga v. Romania (no. 4227/02, §§ 35 and 39, 25 January 2007).
• EGMR, 18.09.2015 - 42219/07

  GHERGHINA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 43695/05

  In that connection, the Court reiterates that States are exempted from answering before an international body for their acts until they have had an opportunity to put matters right through their own legal system, and that those who wish to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court as concerns complaints against a State are thus obliged to use first the remedies provided by the national legal system (see, among many other authorities, Gherghina v. Romania (dec.) [GC], no. 42219/07, § 84, 9 July 2015).
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 38151/05

  RUSEN c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 43695/05

  Accordingly, the domestic courts were in principle better placed to settle a procedure to obtain a re-examination of stamp duty or legal aid initiated after 2004 (see Rusen v. Romania, no. 38151/05, §§ 32-34, 8 January 2009).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 11674/17

  GAZULLI v. ALBANIA

  43695/05 and 5 others, § 28, 4 September 2018, with further references; and contrast with Loncke v. Belgium, no. 20656/03, § 51, 25 September 2007, where the applicant did raise an access to court argument).
• EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 65320/09

  [ENG]

  43695/05 and 5 others, § 28, 4 September 2018, with further references; and contrast with Loncke v. Belgium, no. 20656/03, § 51, 25 September 2007, where the applicant did raise an access to court argument).