Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 27644/95 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ATHANASSOGLOU ET AUTRES c. SUISSE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. a MRK
Non-violation de l'Art. 6-1 Non-violation de l'Art. 13 Radiation partielle du rôle Non-lieu à examiner l'exception préliminaire (non-épuisement des voies de recours internes) (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ATHANASSOGLOU AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. a MRK
No violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 13 Partly struck out of the list Not necessary to examine preliminary objection (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) (englisch) - juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 07.04.1997 - 27644/95
- EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 27644/95
Wird zitiert von ... (83) Neu Zitiert selbst (7)
- EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75
LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 27644/95
The Court reiterates that, according to its well-established case-law, Article 6 § 1 of the Convention may be relied on by individuals who consider that an interference with the exercise of one of their (civil) rights is unlawful and complain that they have not had the possibility of submitting that claim to a court meeting the requirements of Article 6 § 1 (see the Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 20, § 44). - EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 27644/95
In the words of the Court's Golder judgment, Article 6 § 1 embodies the "right to a court", of which the right of access, that is the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters, constitutes one aspect (see the Golder v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 18, § 36). - EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86
KREMZOW v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 27644/95
The Court considers that the Government's argument is so closely linked to the substance of the applicants' complaints under Article 6 § 1 that the preliminary objection should be joined to the merits (see, for example, the Kremzow v. Austria judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-B, p. 41, § 42).
- EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 27644/95
Article 13 has been consistently interpreted by the Court as requiring a remedy only in respect of grievances which can be regarded as "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, for example, the Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52). - EGMR, 26.03.1992 - 11760/85
ÉDITIONS PÉRISCOPE v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 27644/95
The Court must ascertain whether the applicants' arguments were sufficiently tenable; it does not have to decide whether they were well-founded in terms of the applicable Swiss legislation (see, mutatis mutandis, the Le Calvez judgment cited above, pp. 1899-900, § 56, and the Editions Périscope v. France judgment of 26 March 1992, Series A no. 234-B, p. 65, § 38). - EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90
FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 27644/95
As the Court has consistently held, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences are not sufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see the following judgments: Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere cited above, pp. 21-22, § 47; Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294-B, pp. 45-46, § 56; Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands, 28 September 1995, Series A no. 327-A, p. 17, § 44; Balmer-Schafroth and Others cited above, p. 1357, § 32; Le Calvez v. France, 29 July 1998, Reports 1998-V, pp. 1899-900, § 56). - EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 15346/89
MASSON AND VAN ZON v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 27644/95
As the Court has consistently held, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences are not sufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see the following judgments: Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere cited above, pp. 21-22, § 47; Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294-B, pp. 45-46, § 56; Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands, 28 September 1995, Series A no. 327-A, p. 17, § 44; Balmer-Schafroth and Others cited above, p. 1357, § 32; Le Calvez v. France, 29 July 1998, Reports 1998-V, pp. 1899-900, § 56).
- EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 53600/20
Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz u.a. ./. Schweiz - Staatliche Maßnahmen gegen …
De plus, l'issue de la procédure doit être directement déterminante pour le droit en question, un lien ténu ou des répercussions lointaines ne suffisant pas à faire entrer en jeu l'article 6 § 1. Enfin, le droit doit revêtir un caractère « civil'(voir, pour un exemple très récent, Grzeda, précité, § 257, avec d'autres références ; dans le domaine environnemental, voir aussi Athanassoglou et autres c. Suisse [GC], no 27644/95, § 43, CEDH 2000-IV, et Association Burestop 55 et autres, précité, § 52).In matters of general policy, on which opinions within a democratic society may reasonably differ widely, the role of the domestic policy-maker should be given special weight (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, p. 32, § 46, where the Court found it natural that the margin of appreciation "available to the legislature in implementing social and economic policies should be a wide one") (Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 97, ECHR 2003-VIII with further authorities, see also Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 54, ECHR 2000-IV);.
After a detailed consideration of the assessment and inspection reports concerning the relevant power plant as well as the back-fitting to address the major on-going developments in nuclear power plant safety technology, the Court, nevertheless and contrary to the conclusion reached by the Commission (reported as Greenpeace Schweiz and others v Switzerland (Dec), no. 27644/95, 7 April 1997), concluded (at § 51) that "the facts of the present case provide an insufficient basis for distinguishing it from the Balmer-Schaffroth and Others case".
- EGMR, 07.05.2021 - 4907/18
XERO FLOR w POLSCE sp. z o. o. - Unabhängigkeit der polnischen Gerichte
The dispute must be genuine and serious; it may relate not only to the actual existence of a right, but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise; and, finally, the result of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences not being sufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see, among many other authorities, Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 43, ECHR 2000-IV; Károly Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 56665/09, § 60, 14 September 2017; and Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 44, 25 September 2018, with further references). - EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 30474/14
ALI AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND AND ITALY
The Court will confine itself to noting that, according to its standing case-law, Article 13 requires a remedy in domestic law to be available in respect only of such grievances as are "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131; more recently, Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 58, ECHR 2000-IV; Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 137, ECHR 2003-VIII; Taheri Kandomabadi v. the Netherlands (dec.), nos.
- EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00
VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
Admittedly, that was indeed a landmark judgment, delivered following a request for a preliminary ruling, which held that judicial control reflects a general principle of law (this ECJ judgment, Marguerite Johnston, is cited in the joint dissenting opinion of Judges Costa, Tulkens, Fischbach, Casadevall and Maruste in the Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland judgment ([GC], no. 27644/95, ECHR 2000-IV)). - EGMR, 10.07.2006 - 19101/03
SDRUZENÍ JIHOCESKÉ MATKY c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
et autres c. Suisse ([GC], no 27644/95, CEDH 2000-IV), lesquels ont eu au moins la possibilité de faire valoir leurs observations et objections.En conséquence, la requérante n'a pas démontré l'existence d'une ingérence suffisante dans son propre droit « civil'ni, partant, l'existence d'une contestation réelle et sérieuse portant sur son droit au respect des biens (voir, mutatis mutandis, Greenpeace Suisse et autres c. Suisse, no 27644/95, 7 avril 1997).
- EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 43572/18
GRZEDA v. POLAND
Pour constater que ce droit est « défendable ", « la Cour doit seulement déterminer si la thèse [du requérant] présente un degré suffisant de sérieux, et non s'il aurait obtenu gain de cause dans l'hypothèse où il aurait eu accès à un tribunal'(paragraphe 268, citant Neves e Silva c. Portugal, 27 avril 1989, § 37, Série A no 153-A, et Bilgen c. Turquie, no 1571/07, § 53, 9 mars 2021 ; voir aussi, dans la jurisprudence de la Grande Chambre, Athanassoglou et autres c. Suisse [GC], no 27644/95, § 48, CEDH 2000-IV). - EGMR, 10.11.2004 - 46117/99
Taskin u.a. ./. Türkei - Umgehung einer rechtskräftigen Entscheidung der Justiz …
The outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question; tenuous connections or remote consequences are not sufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see, among many other examples, Balmer-Schafroth and Others v. Switzerland, judgment of 26 August 1997, Reports 1997-IV, p. 1357, § 32, and Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 43, ECHR 2000-IV). - EGMR, 27.04.2004 - 62543/00
GORRAIZ LIZARRAGA ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE
L'issue de la procédure doit être directement déterminante pour le droit en question: un lien ténu ou des répercussions lointaines ne suffisent pas à faire entrer en jeu l'article 6 § 1 (voir, par exemple, les arrêts Le Compte, Van Leuven et De Meyere c. Belgique, 23 juin 1981, série A no 43, pp. 21-22, § 47, Fayed c. Royaume-Uni, 21 septembre 1994, série A no 294-B, pp. 45-46, § 56, Masson et Van Zon c. Pays-Bas, 28 septembre 1995, série A no 327-A, p. 17, § 44, Balmer-Schafroth c. Suisse, 26 août 1997, Recueil 1997-IV, p. 1357, § 32, et Athanassoglou et autres c. Suisse [GC], no 27644/95, § 43, CEDH 2000-IV ; voir aussi Syndicat des médecins exerçant en établissement hospitalier privé d'Alsace et autres c. France (déc.), no 44051/98, 31 août 2000). - EGMR, 10.07.2006 - 23673/03
FOLKMAN ETA AUTRES c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
La Cour a toujours considéré qu'un lien ténu ou des répercussions lointaines ne suffisent pas à faire entrer en jeu l'article 6 § 1 (voir, parmi plusieurs autres, Athanassoglou et autres c. Suisse ([GC], no 27644/95, § 43, CEDH 2000-IV, § 43 ; Gorraiz Lizarraga et autres c. Espagne, no 62543/00, § 43, CEDH 2004-III).Dans ces conditions, l'on ne saurait affirmer que la requérante a démontré l'existence d'une ingérence suffisante dans son droit «civil» et, partant, l'existence d'une contestation réelle et sérieuse portant sur son droit au respect des biens (voir, mutatis mutandis, Greenpeace Suisse et autres c. Suisse, no 27644/95, 7 avril 1997).
- EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 75292/10
OTHYMIA INVESTMENTS BV v. THE NETHERLANDS
However, Article 13 cannot reasonably be interpreted so as to require a remedy in domestic law in respect of any supposed grievance under the Convention that an individual may have, no matter how unmeritorious his complaint may be: the grievance must be an arguable one in terms of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131, and Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 58, ECHR 2000-IV; more recently, Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 208, ECHR 2012; A. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 60538/13, § 61, 12 November 2013, and Rukavina v. Croatia, (dec.), no. 770/12, § 75, 6 January 2015). - EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 49849/08
TRUCKENBRODT v. GERMANY
- EGMR, 22.07.2010 - 12286/08
TSOUKALAS c. GRECE
- EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 56665/09
KÁROLY NAGY v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 33804/96
MENNITTO v. ITALY
- EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 16870/11
KAHADAWA ARACHCHIGE AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS
- EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 12853/03
IVAN ATANASOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 17214/05
Savino ./. Italien / Persichetti ./. Italien
- EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 22860/02
WOS v. POLAND
- EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 18880/15
PAPAIOANNOU c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 45835/05
SHAPOVALOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 09.02.2006 - 43371/02
H. R. gegen Deutschland
- EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 33197/09
ALEXANDRE c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 24.01.2019 - 16528/10
SCHOLZ AG v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 15.11.2012 - 43245/07
JOOS v. SWITZERLAND
- EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 36220/97
OKYAY AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 24.07.2018 - 53183/07
NEGREA ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 25.09.2014 - 29878/09
KARIN ANDERSSON AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 36137/04
KROSTA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 12573/06
ELLES ET AUTRES c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 20.10.2016 - 45826/11
ELEFTHERIOS G. KOKKINAKIS - DILOS KYKLOFORIAKI A.T.E. c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 21143/02
BALASA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 21.02.2008 - 18497/03
RAVON ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 72377/01
SARL DU PARC D'ACTIVITES DE BLOTZHEIM c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 61164/00
BARBE et AUTRES c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 52499/11
VECBASTIKA AND OTHERS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 26.08.2014 - 21898/10
ARVANITAKIS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 22326/10
STAVROULAKIS c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 9765/09
DE BRUIN v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 13279/05
NEJDET SAHIN AND PERIHAN SAHIN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 41285/02
SZAL v. POLAND
- EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 20870/04
BELKA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 31438/06
KADLUCZKA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 75218/01
COLLECTIF NATIONAL D'INFORMATION ET D'OPPOSITION A L'USINE MELOX - COLLECTIF STOP …
- EGMR, 01.06.2004 - 44925/98
VALOVA, SLEZAK AND SLEZAK v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 66096/01
ZYNGER v. POLAND
- EGMR, 14.02.2002 - 31889/96
ABDURRAHMAN ORAK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 42096/98
SKAWINSKA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 02.08.2001 - 23529/94
COOPERATIVA LA LAURENTINA c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 16.06.2020 - 64249/17
CEBELIS v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 30357/15
MATEI AND BADEA v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 2126/12
PETROSYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 11151/08
ORZECHOWSKA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 26.09.2017 - 1208/17
MICHALOPOULOU c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 19922/08
THEODORAKIS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 30112/09
F.A.K. v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 12628/09
DZHIDZHEVA-TRENDAFILOVA v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 25.02.2010 - 2947/08
LORENTZATOU c. GRECE
- EGMR, 01.12.2005 - 38841/04
PANTOULIAS c. GRECE
- EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 38311/02
KAKAMOUKAS ET AUTRES contre la GRECE
- EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 54640/00
SYLVESTER v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 04.03.2003 - 41784/98
A.B. v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 14.01.2003 - 45994/99
STRZELECKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 09.11.2000 - 34753/97
JORI v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 30363/15
POPESCU AND CANACHEU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 30469/15
TANASESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 25.02.2016 - 22558/07
DOMAZYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 60538/13
A. v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 22.06.2010 - 9297/08
TEIMURAZ ANDRONIKASHVILI v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 46897/07
EL MORABIT v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 16778/02
JAKOWICZ v. POLAND
- EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 34532/02
KLINAR & KLINAR v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 34600/03
LEVANEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 05.01.2006 - 4095/02
POLICHOUK c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 09.03.2004 - 40290/98
KACMAR v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 44998/98
A. v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 21428/11
NONN ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 63447/09
BODA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 28852/05
OGLOBLINA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 12720/06
ZAPLETAL c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 30474/15
ADAM v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 52946/12
SIMION c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 10.04.2007 - 36178/03
ASSOCIATION DE DEFENSE DES INTERETS DU SPORT c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 13.09.2001 - 50495/99
BALMER-SCHAFROTH AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND