Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BALAKIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Access to court) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Balakin v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10873/84

  TRE TRAKTÖRER AKTIEBOLAG v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 21788/06

  See also Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, § 36, Series A no. 159; Rolf Gustafson v. Sweden, 1 July 1997, § 38, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV; and Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands, 28 September 1995, § 44, Series A no. 327-A).
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 15346/89

  MASSON AND VAN ZON v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 21788/06

  See also Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, 7 July 1989, § 36, Series A no. 159; Rolf Gustafson v. Sweden, 1 July 1997, § 38, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV; and Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands, 28 September 1995, § 44, Series A no. 327-A).
• EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 12573/06

  ELLES ET AUTRES c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 21788/06

  Furthermore, the Court has noted that "the mere fact that the wording of a legal provision affords an element of discretion does not in itself rule out the existence of a right" (see Boulois v. Luxembourg, [GC], no. 37575/04, § 93, ECHR 2012; Camps v. France (dec.), no. 42401/98, 23 November 1999; and Ellès and Others v. Switzerland, no. 12573/06, § 16, 16 December 2010).

 
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 21788/06

  Even though "there is no watertight division separating the sphere of social and economic rights from the field covered by the Convention (Sidabras and Dziautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, § 47, ECHR 2004-VIII; see also Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 26, Series A no. 32), the Court considers that the right invoked by the applicant in the case at hand clearly belongs to the realm of socio-economic rights, which is not covered by the Convention.
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 21788/06

  The Court observes that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the availability at national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they might happen to be secured in the domestic legal order, where there is an "arguable claim" of a violation of a substantive Convention provision (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, §§ 52-54, Series A no. 131).
• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95

  Z ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 21788/06

  In other words, the Russian courts considered that the applicant's claim was not "actionable" and the applicant did not have a "sustainable cause of action" for the purposes of the initiation of proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 100, ECHR 2001-V).
• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 21788/06

  The dividing line between substantive limitations on a right invoked by a claimant and procedural limitations restricting his access to court is sometimes difficult to trace (see Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 65, Series A no. 294-B), but the Court continues to use this test when deciding whether a particular claim engages Article 6. This distinction is consonant with the idea that the Court "may not create by way of interpretation of Article 6 § 1 a substantive civil right which has no legal basis in the State concerned" (Fogarty v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 37112/97, § 25, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 55480/00

  SIDABRAS ET DZIAUTAS c. LITUANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 21788/06

  Even though "there is no watertight division separating the sphere of social and economic rights from the field covered by the Convention (Sidabras and Dziautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, § 47, ECHR 2004-VIII; see also Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 26, Series A no. 32), the Court considers that the right invoked by the applicant in the case at hand clearly belongs to the realm of socio-economic rights, which is not covered by the Convention.
• EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

  ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 21788/06

  The Court's traditional approach to determining whether there is a "right" attracting the application of Article 6 is based on the distinction between the substantive content of the right invoked and possible procedural obstacles to obtaining judicial protection thereof (see Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 119, ECHR 2005-X).
• EGMR, 16.11.2000 - 39442/98

  SOTIRIS ET NIKOS KOUTRAS ATTEE c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 21788/06

  The Court's role is confined to ascertaining whether the effects of such an interpretation are compatible with the Convention (see Société Anonyme Sotiris and Nikos Koutras Attee v. Greece, no. 39442/98, § 17, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 23.10.1985 - 8848/80

  BENTHEM v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 1398/03

  MARKOVIC ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

• EGMR, 24.10.2017 - 20199/14

  NESTERENKO ET GAYDUKOV c. RUSSIE

  Se référant aux décisions Melnik c. Russie (no 2062/03, (déc.), 8 janvier 2009) et Patrînjei c. Roumanie (no 54950/07, (déc.), 28 janvier 2014), et aux arrêts Balakin c. Russie (no 21788/06, 4 juillet 2013) et Roche c. Royaume-Uni ([GC], no 32555/96, CEDH 2005-X), il estime qu'il n'y a pas de litige, au sens de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention.