Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MOMCILOVIC 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 - Tribunal established by law) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Momcilovic v. Serbia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 23103/07
• EGMR, 29.04.2015 - 23103/07

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 23103/07

  Even assuming that the applicant's "claim" is "sufficiently established to be enforceable" to attract the guarantees of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among many authorities, Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 59, Series A no. 301-B), the Court finds, in view of the above considerations, that the applicant's complaint under this provision is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Breierova and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 57321/00, 8 October 2002 and Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX).
• EGMR, 20.07.2006 - 29458/04

  SOKURENKO AND STRYGUN v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 23103/07

  In addition, the phrase "established by law" covers not only the legal basis for the very existence of a "tribunal" but also compliance by the tribunal with the particular rules that govern it (see Sokurenko and Strygun v. Ukraine, nos. 29458/04 and 29465/04, § 24, 20 July 2006) and the composition of the bench in each case (see Buscarini v. San Marino (dec.), no. 31657/96, 4 May 2000, and Posokhov v. Russia, no. 63486/00, § 39, ECHR 2003-IV).
• EKMR, 06.12.1989 - 11879/85

  ROSSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 23103/07

  The Court reiterates that the phrase "established by law" in Article 6 § 1 also means "established in accordance with law" (see, for instance, Rossi v. France, no. 11879/85, Commission decision of 6 December 1989, Decisions and Reports 63, p.105).

 
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 31657/96

  BUSCARINI contre SAINT-MARIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 23103/07

  In addition, the phrase "established by law" covers not only the legal basis for the very existence of a "tribunal" but also compliance by the tribunal with the particular rules that govern it (see Sokurenko and Strygun v. Ukraine, nos. 29458/04 and 29465/04, § 24, 20 July 2006) and the composition of the bench in each case (see Buscarini v. San Marino (dec.), no. 31657/96, 4 May 2000, and Posokhov v. Russia, no. 63486/00, § 39, ECHR 2003-IV).
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 28743/03

  MELNITCHOUK c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 23103/07

  Even assuming that the applicant's "claim" is "sufficiently established to be enforceable" to attract the guarantees of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among many authorities, Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 59, Series A no. 301-B), the Court finds, in view of the above considerations, that the applicant's complaint under this provision is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Breierova and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 57321/00, 8 October 2002 and Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 23103/07

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 only applies where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131).
• EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 15450/89

  CASADO COCA v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 23103/07

  Reiterating that it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to resolve problems of interpretation of domestic legislation (see, mutatis mutandis, Edificaciones March Gallego S.A. v. Spain, 19 February 1998, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, and Casado Coca v. Spain, 24 February 1994, § 43, Series A no. 285-A), the Court notes that the Supreme Court applied the Civil Procedure Act 2004 when ruling on the admissibility of the applicant's appeal on points of law (see paragraph 12 above) and it sees no reason to call into question this interpretation.