Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DUCHONOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 13 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85

  HELMERS c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2006 - 29858/03

  The Court notes that, the right to enjoy a good reputation is a civil right within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, § 27; Helmers v. Sweden, judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-A, p. 14, § 124; Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316-B, p. 78, § 58).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2006 - 29858/03

  The Court notes that, the right to enjoy a good reputation is a civil right within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, § 27; Helmers v. Sweden, judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-A, p. 14, § 124; Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316-B, p. 78, § 58).
• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

  AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2006 - 29858/03

  The Court notes that the wording itself of Article 6 ("against him") makes it clear that in criminal cases its guarantees protect the person who faces a criminal charge (see AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 October 1986, Series A no. 108, § 65).

 
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90

  LÓPEZ OSTRA c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2006 - 29858/03

  The Court draws attention to its settled case-law, in accordance with which Article 8, while primarily intended to protect the individual against arbitrary interference on the part of the public authorities, may also entail the adoption by the latter of measures to secure the rights guaranteed by that Article even in the sphere of relations between individuals including in cases of alleged harassment (see, e.g., López Ostra v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C, § 51; Moreno Gómez v. Spain, no. 4143/02, § 55, 16 November 2004; and Surugiu v. Romania, no. 48995/99, § 59, 20 April 2004; Birznieks v. Latvia (dec.), no 56930/00, 23 October 2001).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2006 - 29858/03

  However, this provision applies only in respect of grievances under the Convention which are arguable (see, e.g., Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

  JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2006 - 29858/03

  The existence of the remedies in question must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see, e.g., Vernillo v. France, judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, § 27; Johnston and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 112, p. 22, § 45).

• EGMR, 20.10.2010 - 22736/06

  POSTOVA BANKA, A.S. v. SLOVAKIA

  It observes that the application primarily raises a question as to the applicability of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ratione materiae to those complaints, in view in particular of the applicant company's specific procedural position at what was a relatively early stage of the proceedings initiated by its criminal complaint, set against the general procedural framework for such complaints, and in view of the other means potentially available to the applicant company in the Slovakian legal order for the assertion of its right (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, ECHR 2004 I, and also Krumpel and Krumpelová v. Slovakia, no. 56195/00, 5 July 2005; Bíro v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 57678/00, 27 June 2006 and Duchonnová v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 29858/03, 2 October 2006).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 3027/03

  SLADKOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court finds that the proceedings brought by the applicant before the Oktyabrskiy District Court to challenge the prosecutor's decision not to prosecute third persons did not determine his "civil rights and obligations" (see, by contrast, Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, §§ 57-72, ECHR 2004-I; see also Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands, no. 52391/99, § 434, 10 November 2005; Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 52391/99, § 360, ECHR 2007-...; and Duchonová v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 29858/03, 2 October 2006).