Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TIGRAK v. TURKEY

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  TIGRAK v. TURKEY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 33771/02

  DRIZA c. ALBANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2021 - 70306/10

  In this connection, it is the State's responsibility to organise the legal system in such a way as to avoid the adoption of discordant judgments in parallel proceedings and to uphold the principle of legal certainty of final judgments, which was impaired by the use of the rectification-of-error proceedings in the instant case (see, mutatis mutandis, Vrioni and Others v. Albania, no. 2141/03, § 58, 24 March 2009, and Driza v. Albania, no. 33771/02, § 69, ECHR 2007-V (extracts)).
• EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 25132/13

  COMPCAR, S.R.O. v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2021 - 70306/10

  The Court observes that the relevant Convention principles have been summarised as follows in Brumarescu v. Romania ([GC], no. 28342/95, §§ 61-62, ECHR 1999-VII) and COMPCAR, s.r.o. v. Slovakia (no. 25132/13, §§ 63-64, 9 June 2015):.

• EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 50849/21

  WALESA v. POLAND

  The review should not be treated as an ordinary appeal in disguise, and the mere possibility of there being two views on the subject is not a ground for re-examination (see Rosca v. Moldova, no. 6267/02, § 25, 22 March 2005; Agrokompleks v. Ukraine, no. 23465/03, § 148, 6 October 2011; Vardanyan and Nanushyan v. Armenia, no. 8001/07, § 67, 27 October 2016; ?žamat v. Turkey, no. 29115/07, § 53, 21 January 2020; and Tigrak v. Turkey, no. 70306/10, § 48, 6 July 2021).
• EGMR - 14424/19 (anhängig)

  OSADCHYY v. UKRAINE

  Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the principles of the rule of law and legal certainty respected as regards the quashing of the final ruling of the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters of 12 July 2017 (see, for example, Ponomaryov v. Ukraine, no. 3236/03, §§ 40-42, 3 April 2008, and Tigrak v. Turkey, no. 70306/10, §§ 48-64, 6 July 2021)? Did the Supreme Court provide sufficient reasons for its ruling of 3 October 2018 (see, for example, Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 61, ECHR 2015, and Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 20.09.2022 - 45580/15

  TREGUET c. RUSSIE

  Appréciation de la Cour 28. Les principes généraux relatifs à la sécurité juridique, à la non-remise en cause d'une décision de justice définitive et à la portée du contrôle de la Cour dans ces domaines sont résumés dans les arrêts Solomun c. Croatie (no 679/11, §§ 47-48, 2 avril 2015), Elisei-Uzun et Andonie c. Roumanie (no 42447/10, §§ 42-43, 23 avril 2019), Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson c. Islande ([GC] no 26374/18, § 238, 1er décembre 2020), et, dernièrement, Tigrak c. Turquie (no 70306/10, §§ 48-49, 6 juillet 2021, et les références qui y sont citées).