Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VEEBER v. ESTONIA (No. 1)

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection allowed (ratione temporis) Preliminary objection allowed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 6-1 Not necessary to examine Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.03.2000 - 37571/97
• EGMR, 07.11.2002 - 37571/97

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2002 - 37571/97

  They do not deal with professional or business activities or premises, which are included in the wider notion of "private life" and "home" in Article 8 of the Convention (see Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, pp. 33-34, §§ 29-31, and Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, § 40, ECHR 2002-III).

  On the other hand the Court has stated in the Niemietz v. Germany case that "the search of the applicant's office constituted an interference with his rights under Article 8" (Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, pp. 33-34, §§ 29-31).

• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2002 - 37571/97

  The Court recalls that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41, it must be established that that they were actually and necessarily incurred in order to prevent or obtain redress for the matter found to constitute a violation of the Convention and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nielsen and Johnson v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 26083/94

  WAITE AND KENNEDY v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2002 - 37571/97

  In this way the Article 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 only (see Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, § 50, ECHR 1999-I, and Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 18, § 36).

 
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2002 - 37571/97

  Consequently, States are dispensed from answering for their acts before an international body before they have had the opportunity to put matters right through their own legal systems (see, for example, Remli v. France, judgment of 23 April 1996, Reports 1996-II, p. 571, § 33, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 37971/97

  STES COLAS EST AND OTHERS v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2002 - 37571/97

  They do not deal with professional or business activities or premises, which are included in the wider notion of "private life" and "home" in Article 8 of the Convention (see Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, pp. 33-34, §§ 29-31, and Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, § 40, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14556/89

  PAPAMICHALOPOULOS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2002 - 37571/97

  The Court also recalls that it has endorsed the notion of a continuing violation of the Convention and its effects as to temporal limitations of the competence of Convention organs (see, for example, Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 260-B, pp. 69-70, §§ 40-46, and Loizidou v. Turkey, judgment of 18 December 1996 (merits), Reports of Judgements and Decisions 1996-VI, p. 2230, § 41).
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2002 - 37571/97

  In this way the Article 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 only (see Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, § 50, ECHR 1999-I, and Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 18, § 36).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2002 - 37571/97

  This is particularly true for the right of access to courts in view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial (see, for example, Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, pp. 12-13, § 24).