Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 7963/05   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2013,11530
EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 7963/05 (https://dejure.org/2013,11530)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 04.06.2013 - 7963/05 (https://dejure.org/2013,11530)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 04. Juni 2013 - 7963/05 (https://dejure.org/2013,11530)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,11530) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges (2)

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

  • EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

    VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 7963/05
    In its judgment in the case of Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 62, ECHR 2007-II, the Court's Grand Chamber laid down new criteria regarding the applicability of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to disputes concerning the employment of civil servants.
  • EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

    SCHENK c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 7963/05
    First, Article 6 of the Convention does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see Schenk v. Switzerland, Series A no. 140, p. 29, §§ 45-46, and Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC] no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
  • EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

    VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 7963/05
    The national court is under a duty to conduct a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence adduced by the parties, without prejudice to its assessment of whether they are relevant to its decision (Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, § 59, Series A no. 288).
  • EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 46601/06

    ROMUALD KOZLOWSKI v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 7963/05
    If domestic law does not bar access to a court, the Court does not need to go into the second of these criteria (see Rizhamadze v. Georgia, no. 2745/03, §§ 27-28, 31 July 2007; Efendiyeva, cited above, § 41; and Romuald Kozlowski v. Poland, no. 46601/06, § 24, 20 January 2009).
  • EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 2745/03

    RIZHAMADZE v. GEORGIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 7963/05
    If domestic law does not bar access to a court, the Court does not need to go into the second of these criteria (see Rizhamadze v. Georgia, no. 2745/03, §§ 27-28, 31 July 2007; Efendiyeva, cited above, § 41; and Romuald Kozlowski v. Poland, no. 46601/06, § 24, 20 January 2009).
  • EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 18064/91

    HIRO BALANI v. SPAIN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 7963/05
    Article 6 § 1 obliges courts to give reasons for their decisions, but cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument (ibid, § 61; Hiro Balani v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 27, Series A no. 303-B; Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 29, Series A no. 303-A).
  • EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

    GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 7963/05
    First, Article 6 of the Convention does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see Schenk v. Switzerland, Series A no. 140, p. 29, §§ 45-46, and Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC] no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
  • EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12945/87

    HADJIANASTASSIOU v. GREECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 7963/05
    They must, however, indicate with sufficient clarity the grounds on which they based their decision (Hadjianastassiou v. Greece, 16 December 1992, § 33, Series A no. 252).
  • EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

    STANEV c. BULGARIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 7963/05
    It must in addition be pointed out that a judgment in which the Court finds a breach of the Convention or the Protocols thereto imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the breach and to redress as far as possible its effects (see, as a recent authority, Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 254, ECHR 2012).
  • EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

    DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 7963/05
    Third, the principle of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms, which is one of the elements of the broader concept of a fair hearing, requires that each party be given a reasonable opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations made or evidence adduced by the other party, and to present his case under conditions that do not place him or her at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his or her opponent (Olujic, cited above, § 78; Krcmár and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 35376/97, § 39, 3 March 2000, and Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274).
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