Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 4436/07   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2014,15121
EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 4436/07 (https://dejure.org/2014,15121)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 03.07.2014 - 4436/07 (https://dejure.org/2014,15121)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 03. Juli 2014 - 4436/07 (https://dejure.org/2014,15121)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2014,15121) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges (2)

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

  • EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 3932/02

    BATSANINA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 4436/07
    The principle of equality of arms requires "a fair balance between the parties", and each party must be given a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent (see Batsanina v. Russia, no. 3932/02, § 22, 26 May 2009).
  • EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

    STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 4436/07
    It is central to the concept of a fair trial, in civil as in criminal proceedings, that a litigant is not denied the opportunity to present his case effectively before the court and that he is able to enjoy equality of arms with the opposing side (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 59, ECHR 2005-II).
  • EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04

    NECHIPORUK AND YONKALO v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 4436/07
    Furthermore, the principle of fairness enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention is disturbed where domestic courts ignore a specific, pertinent and important point made by an applicant (see Pronina v. Ukraine, no. 63566/00, § 25, 18 July 2006, and Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, no. 42310/04, § 280, 21 April 2011).
  • EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 64806/16

    MAROSLAVAC v. CROATIA

    In view of the legal provisions cited above and the well-established jurisprudence of the domestic courts on the matter, we consider that the arguments raised by the applicant were specific, pertinent and important (see, mutatis mutandis, Tarvydas v. Lithuania, no. 36098/19, § 52, 23 November 2021; and Mala v. Ukraine, no. 4436/07, § 48, 3 July 2014, and the authorities cited therein).
  • EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 5386/10

    ZAYIDOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

    The Court's task is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, including the way in which evidence and procedural decisions were taken, were fair (see Tamminen v. Finland, no. 40847/98, § 38, 15 June 2004; Mala v. Ukraine, no. 4436/07, § 47, 3 July 2014; and Evers v. Germany, no. 17895/14, § 80, 28 May 2020).
  • EGMR, 15.07.2021 - 23819/11

    ARCELORMITTAL AMBALAJ CELIGI SANAYI VE TICARET ANONIM SIRKETI v. UKRAINE

    The principle of fairness enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention would be disturbed where the domestic courts ignored a specific, pertinent and important point made by an applicant (see, for instance, Pronina v. Ukraine, no. 63566/00, § 25, 18 July 2006, and Mala v. Ukraine, no. 4436/07, § 48, 3 July 2014).
  • EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 11161/08

    MONT BLANC TRADING LTD AND ANTARES TITANIUM TRADING LTD v. UKRAINE

    The principle of fairness enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention would be disturbed where domestic courts ignore a specific, pertinent and important point made by an applicant (see, for instance, Pronina v. Ukraine, no. 63566/00, § 25, 18 July 2006, and Mala v. Ukraine, no. 4436/07, § 48, 3 July 2014).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht