Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TELTRONIC-CATV v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 03.05.2005 - 48140/99
• EGMR, 10.01.2006 - 48140/99

Wird zitiert von ... (32)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2006 - 48140/99

  In this way, that provision embodies the "right to a court", of which the right of access, that is the right to institute proceedings before a court in civil matters, constitutes one aspect only; however, it is an aspect that makes it in fact possible to benefit from the further guarantees laid down in paragraph 1 of Article 6 (see, among many other authorities, Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 January 1975, Series A no. 18, pp. 16-18, §§ 34 in fine and 35-36, and Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, §§ 52 et seq., ECHR 2001-VI).
• EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 28249/95

  KREUZ c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2006 - 48140/99

  In this way, that provision embodies the "right to a court", of which the right of access, that is the right to institute proceedings before a court in civil matters, constitutes one aspect only; however, it is an aspect that makes it in fact possible to benefit from the further guarantees laid down in paragraph 1 of Article 6 (see, among many other authorities, Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 January 1975, Series A no. 18, pp. 16-18, §§ 34 in fine and 35-36, and Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, §§ 52 et seq., ECHR 2001-VI).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2006 - 48140/99

  However, such limitations must pursue a legitimate aim and there must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the legitimate aim sought to be achieved (see, for instance, Brualla Gómez de la Torre v. Spain, judgment of 19 December 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII, p. 2955, § 33, and Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316-B, pp. 80-81, §§ 61 et seq.).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97

  COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2006 - 48140/99

  However, the Court accepts that the applicant company has suffered non-pecuniary damage which is not sufficiently compensated by the finding of a violation (see, mutatis mutandis, Comingersoll v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, §§ 35-37, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 39199/98

  PODBIELSKI AND PPU POLPURE v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2006 - 48140/99

  Rn. 61 Furthermore, the Court considers that restrictions on access to a court which are of a purely financial nature and which, as in the present case, are completely unrelated to the merits of the claim or its prospects of success, should be subject to a particularly rigorous scrutiny from the point of view of the interests of justice (see, mutatis mutandis, Podbielski and PPU Polpure v. Poland, no. 39199/98, § 65 in fine, 26 July 2005).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 68490/01

  STANKOV v. BULGARIA

  Unlike other cases concerning excessive court fees - where the individuals concerned, being unable to pay, did not have "access" to a court or to a particular stage of the proceedings (see, among many others, Weissman and Others v. Romania, no. 63945/00, 24 May 2006 and Teltronic-CATV v. Poland, no. 48140/99, 10 January 2006) - in the instant case the payment of the fee was not a pre-condition for the examination of the case.
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 37492/05

  [ENG]

  The legal provisions applicable at the material time and questions of practice are set out in paragraphs 23-33 of the judgment delivered by the Court on 19 June 2001 in the case of Kreuz v. Poland (no. 28249/95, ECHR 2001-VI; see also the judgment delivered by the Court on 10 January 2006 in the case of Teltronic-CATV v. Poland, no. 48140/99, §§ 20-33).

  There was no risk of winding-up or any serious, long-term perturbation of the applicant company's cash flow (contrast Teltronic-CATV v. Poland, no. 48140/99, 10 January 2006).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 18.10.2012 - C-260/11

  Edwards und Pallikaropoulos - Übereinkommen von Aarhus - Richtlinie 2003/35/EG - …

  {FN:26} - Vgl. auch EGMR Urteile vom 26 Juli 2005, Podbielski and PPU Polpure/Polen (Beschwerde Nr. 39199/98, § 67), und vom 10. Januar 2006, Teltronic-CATV/Polen (Beschwerde Nr. 48140/99, insbesondere §§ 50 ff.), wo es um deutlich niedrigere Vorschüsse ging.

• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 4687/11

  LIGA PORTUGUESA DE FUTEBOL PROFISSIONAL c. PORTUGAL

  Contrairement à d'autres affaires portées devant la Cour dans lesquelles était en cause le caractère excessif de certains frais de procédure - et où, faute de pouvoir acquitter les frais en question, les requérants n'avaient pas eu « accès'à un tribunal ou à telle ou telle voie de recours (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Weissman et autres c. Roumanie, no 63945/00, § 42, CEDH 2006-VII (extraits) ; et Teltronic-CATV c. Pologne, no 48140/99, 10 janvier 2006) -, le paiement des frais exigibles ne constituait pas une condition préalable à l'examen du recours exercé par l'intéressée dans la présente affaire.
• EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 4227/02

  IORGA c. ROUMANIE

  En tout état de cause, la Cour ne saurait spéculer sur l'issue de la procédure interne (Teltronic-CATV c. Pologne, no 48140/99, § 69, 10 janvier 2006).
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 19673/03

  GRYAZNOV v. RUSSIA

  In this way, that provision embodies the "right to court", of which the right of access to court, that is, the right to institute proceedings before a court, constitutes one aspect; however, it is an aspect that makes it in fact possible to benefit from the further guarantees laid down in paragraph 1 of Article 6 (see Sergey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 14085/04, § 25, 22 December 2009, and Teltronic-CATV v. Poland, no. 48140/99, § 45, 10 January 2006).
• EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 38736/04

  FC MRETEBI v. GEORGIA

  However, the Court recalls that Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his or her civil rights and obligations brought before a court (see Teltronic-CATV v. Poland, no. 48140/99, §§ 45 and 64, 10 January 2006; Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, pp.
• EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 59914/16

  NALBANT AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court further notes that despite the absence of a consensus, or even a consolidated tendency among the States Parties to the Convention, as regards the granting of legal aid to legal persons, it has applied the same principles on the right of access to a court without making a distinction between natural and legal persons (see, for example, for the application of those principles to legal persons, Teltronic-CATV v. Poland, no. 48140/99, §§ 45-49, 10 January 2006; FC Mretebi, cited above, §§ 39-41; Agromodel OOD and Mironov v. Bulgaria, no. 68334/01, §§ 34-37, 24 September 2009; and, mutatis mutandis, Sace Elektrik Ticaret ve Sanayi A.S. v. Turkey, no. 20577/05, § 28, 22 October 2013).
• EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 3102/05

  EVT COMPANY v. SERBIA

  The Court accepts that the applicant has suffered some non-pecuniary damage which would not be sufficiently compensated by the finding of the violations alone (see, mutatis mutandis, Comingersoll v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, §§ 35-37, ECHR 2000-IV, and Teltronic-CATV v. Poland, no. 48140/99, §§ 67, 68 and 60, 10 January 2006).
• EGMR, 24.05.2006 - 63945/00

  WEISSMAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Having regard to the circumstances of the case, and particularly to the fact that this restriction was imposed at an initial stage of the proceedings, the Court considers that it was disproportionate and thus impaired the very essence of the right of access to a court (see, mutatis mutandis, Teltronic­CATV v. Poland, no. 48140/99, 10 January 2006).
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 1783/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 38151/05

  RUSEN c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 75435/17

  BALKUNAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 27865/02

  BOCVARSKA v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 21638/03

  PAYKAR YEV HAGHTANAK LTD v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 37343/05

  ZIT COMPANY v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 74778/14

  TARATUKHIN c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 35368/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.09.2010 - 39874/03

  CHERNICHKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 32740/06

  NIERUCHOMOSCI SP. Z O.O. c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 13703/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 5613/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 25669/04

  BESSLER c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 5355/04

  SC SILVOGRECU COM SRL c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 14085/04

  SERGEY SMIRNOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 45890/05

  ADAM c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 03.03.2009 - 20482/03

  CIBICKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 8024/08

  EVT COMPANY v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 02.09.2021 - 56293/15

  KOM, SPOLOCNOS?¤ S RUCENÍM OBMEDZENÝM v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 44150/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 38399/03

  POLEJOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 23.01.2007 - 23779/02

  KOZLOWSKI v. POLAND