Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PASQUINI v. SAN MARINO

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PASQUINI v. SAN MARINO

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

Wird zitiert von ... (21)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

  BLECIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2019 - 50956/16

  It marks out the temporal limits of the supervision carried out by the organs of the Convention and signals to both individuals and State authorities the period beyond which such supervision is no longer possible (see Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 68, ECHR 2006-III; Pe?ˆaranda Soto v. Malta, no. 16680/14, § 43, 19 December 2017, and the case-law cited therein).

  After all, just like the six-months requirement (Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 68, ECHR 2006-III), the exhaustion requirement on its face goes to the very jurisdiction of the Court (as compared to the "mere" admissibility of the complaint) and:.

• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2019 - 50956/16

  The Court has also accepted that there can be cases where the prospective litigant must obtain prior authorisation before being allowed to proceed with his claim (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 59, Series A no. 93).
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33958/96

  WETTSTEIN v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2019 - 50956/16

  In itself, the objective test is functional in nature: for instance, the exercise of different functions within the judicial process by the same person (see Piersack, cited above), or hierarchical or other links with another actor in the proceedings (see cases regarding the dual role of a judge, for example, Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, § 47, ECHR 2000-XII and Me?¾naric v. Croatia, no. 71615/01, 15 July 2005, representing the applicant's opponents and subsequently judging in a single set of proceedings and overlapping proceedings respectively), give rise to objectively justified misgivings as to the impartiality of the tribunal, which thus fail to meet the Convention standard under the objective test (see Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, § 121, ECHR 2005-XIII).

 
• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 18544/08

  CENTRAL MEDITERRANEAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED v. MALTA (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2019 - 50956/16

  Also, in the Court's view, the scope of the examination as to whether or not to grant leave to appeal against the decision of the Court for Trusts, did not amount to an assessment of the merits of the appeal (see, mutatis mutandis, R.M.B. v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 37120/97, ECHR 16 January 2007, and Central Mediterranean Development Corporation Limited v. Malta (no. 2), no. 18544/08, §§ 35-36, 22 November 2011), which, had leave been granted, would have been determined in line with the opinion of a different judicial body, namely a panel of experts (see paragraph 57 above) (see, mutatis mutandis, Warsicka, cited above, § 44).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2019 - 50956/16

  The right of access to the courts is not absolute but may be subject to limitations; these are permitted by implication since the right of access by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and in place according to the needs and resources of the community and of individuals (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 230, ECHR 2012).
• EKMR, 09.09.1998 - 37120/97

  R.M.B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2019 - 50956/16

  Also, in the Court's view, the scope of the examination as to whether or not to grant leave to appeal against the decision of the Court for Trusts, did not amount to an assessment of the merits of the appeal (see, mutatis mutandis, R.M.B. v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 37120/97, ECHR 16 January 2007, and Central Mediterranean Development Corporation Limited v. Malta (no. 2), no. 18544/08, §§ 35-36, 22 November 2011), which, had leave been granted, would have been determined in line with the opinion of a different judicial body, namely a panel of experts (see paragraph 57 above) (see, mutatis mutandis, Warsicka, cited above, § 44).
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 2065/03

  WARSICKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2019 - 50956/16

  As regards the objective test, the Court reiterates that the requirements of a fair hearing as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention do not automatically prevent the same judge from successively performing different functions within the framework of the same case (see Warsicka v. Poland, no. 2065/03, § 40, 16 January 2007 and, a contrario, San Leonard Band Club v. Malta, no. 77562/01, §§ 63-64, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 28249/95

  KREUZ c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2019 - 50956/16

  The Court has ruled that in some cases, in particular where the limitations in question related to the conditions of admissibility of an appeal, or where the interests of justice required that the applicant, in connection with his appeal, provide security for costs to be incurred by the other party to the proceedings, various limitations, including financial ones, may be placed on the individual's access to a "court" or "tribunal" (Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, § 54, ECHR 2001-VI).
• EGMR, 05.11.2002 - 43191/98

  LAIDIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2019 - 50956/16

  While we are, of course, aware that the respondent Government has not expressly raised any objection to the present application on the basis of exhaustion of domestic remedies, it seems to us that, in particular in this "age of subsidiarity" (see, for example, the Copenhagen Declaration of 13 April 2018, in particular at paragraph 10), it would be inappropriate to consider the merits of a complaint in circumstances such as the present, where it is obvious on the face of the application that the applicant has failed to exhaust domestic remedies (see, mutatis mutandis, Laidin v. France (no. 1), no. 43191/98, 8 January 2002).
• EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 8162/13

  BIAGIOLI v. SAN MARINO

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2019 - 50956/16

  Relying on Biagioli v. San Marino ((dec.), no. 8162/13, § 71, ECHR 8 July 2014) and Savino and Others v. Italy (nos. 17214/05 and 2 others, § 94, 28 April 2009) the applicant submitted that a tribunal had to be established by law, so that the latter did not depend on the discretion of the executive or the judicial authorities.
• EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 24645/94

  BUSCARINI ET AUTRES c. SAINT-MARIN
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11

  DENISOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79

  PIERSACK v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

• EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 26374/18

  GUÐMUNDUR ANDRI ÁSTRÁÐSSON c. ISLANDE

  That phrase reflects, in particular, the principle of the rule of law and covers not only the legal basis for the very existence of a tribunal, but also the composition of the bench in each case and any other provision of domestic law which, if breached, would render the participation of one or more judges in the examination of a case irregular, including, in particular, provisions concerning the independence and impartiality of the members of the court concerned (see, to that effect, ECtHR, 8 July 2014, Biagioli v. San Marino, CE:ECHR:2014:0708DEC000816213, §§ 72 to 74, and ECtHR, 2 May 2019, Pasquini v. San Marino, CE:ECHR:2019:0502JUD005095616, §§ 100 and 101 and the case-law cited).
• EuGH, 22.02.2022 - C-562/21

  Ablehnung der Vollstreckung eines Europäischen Haftbefehls: der Gerichtshof …

  Zum anderen hat der Gerichtshof in Bezug auf das Erfordernis eines zuvor durch Gesetz errichteten Gerichts unter Bezugnahme auf die Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte zu Art. 6 EMRK (EGMR, 8. Juli 2014, Biagioli/San Marino, CE:ECHR:2014:0708DEC000816213, §§ 72 bis 74, und EGMR, 2. Mai 2019, Pasquini/San Marino, EU:ECHR:2019:0502JUD005095616, §§ 100 und 101 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung) ausgeführt, dass der Ausdruck "auf Gesetz beruhend" insbesondere das Rechtstaatsprinzip widerspiegelt.
• EuGH, 26.03.2020 - C-542/18

  Réexamen Simpson/ Rat - Überprüfung der Urteile des Gerichts der Europäischen …

  Dieser Ausdruck spiegelt insbesondere das Rechtsstaatsprinzip wider und umfasst nicht nur die Rechtsgrundlage für die Existenz des Gerichts, sondern auch die Zusammensetzung des Spruchkörpers in jeder Rechtssache sowie alle weiteren Vorschriften des innerstaatlichen Rechts, deren Nichtbeachtung die Teilnahme eines oder mehrerer Richter an der Verhandlung über die Rechtssache vorschriftswidrig macht, was insbesondere Vorschriften über die Unabhängigkeit und die Unparteilichkeit der Mitglieder des betreffenden Gerichts einschließt (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 8. Juli 2014, Biagioli/San Marino, CE:ECHR:2014:0708DEC000816213, §§ 72 bis 74, und 2. Mai 2019, Pasquini/San Marino, CE:ECHR:2019:0502JUD005095616, §§ 100 und 101 sowie die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung).

 
• EGMR, 16.07.2020 - 11288/18

  D c. FRANCE

  Je suis loin d'être le seul juge à me demander si la jurisprudence actuelle de la Cour selon laquelle celle-ci ne peut soulever une absence d'épuisement proprio motu est la plus adaptée et si les dispositions pertinentes de la Convention l'imposent (voir, entre autres, l'opinion séparée exprimée par la juge Koskelo (et moi-même) dans l'affaire Fabian c. Hongrie [GC], no 78117/13, 5 septembre 2017 ; le paragraphe 17 de l'opinion des juges Wojtyczek, Eicke et Ilievski jointe à l'arrêt Pasquini c. Saint-Marin, no 50956/16, 2 mai 2019, ainsi que l'exposé extrajudiciaire du juge Eicke intitulé, « The Court's approach to exhaustion of domestic remedies in the age of subsidiarity ", in L.-A. Sicilianos et al.
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 04.03.2021 - C-357/19

  Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Bobek sind Entscheidungen eines …

  77 EGMR, 2. Mai 2019, Pasquini/San Marino (CE:ECHR:2019:0502JUD005095616, § 100).
• EuGH, 12.09.2019 - C-542/18

  Überprüfung - Gericht für den öffentlichen Dienst der Europäischen Union - …

  Wegen des allgemeinen Grundsatzes, dem zufolge es in erster Linie Sache der nationalen Gerichte selbst ist, die nationalen Rechtsvorschriften auszulegen, ist der [EGMR] der Auffassung, dass er ihre Auslegung nicht in Frage stellen kann, es sei denn im Fall einer eklatanten Verletzung des nationalen Rechts"( 35 Urteil des EGMR vom 2. Mai 2019, Pasquini/San Marino, Beschwerde Nr. 50956/16, CE:ECHR:2019:0502JUD005095616, § 102 . Vgl. das vorausgegangene Urteil des EGMR vom 13. April 2006, Fedotova/Russland, Beschwerde Nr. 73225/01, CE:ECHR:2006:0413JUD007322501, § 42. < schließen ).
• EGMR, 01.02.2024 - 22431/20

  UGULAVA v. GEORGIA (No. 2)

  The Court considers that, in the circumstances of the present case, the applicant should have at least tried that avenue and given the domestic authorities an opportunity to put matters right through their own legal system (see Pasquini v. San Marino, no. 50956/16, §§ 123-24, 2 May 2019).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 12.09.2019 - C-542/18 RX-II

  Réexamen Simpson/ Rat

  35 Urteil des EGMR vom 2. Mai 2019, Pasquini/San Marino, Beschwerde Nr. 50956/16, CE:ECHR:2019:0502JUD005095616, § 102. Vgl. das vorausgegangene Urteil des EGMR vom 13. April 2006, Fedotova/Russland, Beschwerde Nr. 73225/01, CE:ECHR:2006:0413JUD007322501, § 42.
• EGMR, 08.06.2023 - 46530/09

  URGESI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Toutefois, il ne suffit pas, à cet égard, que les deux procédures en cause tirent leur origine du même contexte factuel, les questions qu'elles sont appelées à trancher pouvant être en substance différentes (voir Pasquini c. Saint-Marin, no 50956/16, §§ 145-150, 2 mai 2019, Sproge c. Lettonie (déc.), no 7407/06, §§ 34-35, 20 octobre 2015, Mugliett v. Malta (déc.), no 46661/12, §§ 29-30, 28 May 2013, et Steulet c. Suisse, no 31351/06, §§ 40-41, 26 avril 2011).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 12.09.2019 - C-543/18 RX-II

  Réexamen HG/ Kommission

  35 Urteil des EGMR vom 2. Mai 2019, Pasquini/San Marino, Beschwerde Nr. 50956/16, CE:ECHR:2019:0502JUD005095616, § 102. Vgl. das vorausgegangene Urteil des EGMR vom 13. April 2006, Fedotova/Russland, Beschwerde Nr. 73225/01, CE:ECHR:2006:0413JUD007322501, § 42.
• EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 2303/19

  KATSIKEROS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 59914/16

  NALBANT AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 31.03.2020 - 82284/17

  JEANTY c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 09.11.2023 - 46131/19

  TOIVANEN v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 15995/07

  I.M. RESAN S.R.L. c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 11.07.2019 - 32953/13

  SKRLJ v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 16.05.2023 - 75587/17

  ROBLEDO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 79089/13

  LOQUIFER c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR - 35359/23 (anhängig)

  GOGINASHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 11.05.2023 - 3405/21

  ZAGHINI v. SAN MARINO
• EGMR, 24.11.2020 - 30836/07

  BAHAETTIN UZAN v. TURKEY