Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 09.03.2017 - 49526/07 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,5493) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KUZMENKO v. UKRAINE
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
KUZMENKO v. UKRAINE
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 26083/94
WAITE AND KENNEDY v. GERMANY
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2017 - 49526/07
The Court's role is confined to ascertaining whether the effects of such an interpretation are compatible with the Convention (see, among other authorities, Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, § 54, ECHR 1999-I). - EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 1398/03
MARKOVIC ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2017 - 49526/07
However, the right of access to a court is not absolute and may be subject to limitations that do not restrict or reduce the access left to an individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired (see Markovic and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 1398/03, § 99, ECHR 2006-XIV, and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 230, ECHR 2012). - EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06
STANEV c. BULGARIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2017 - 49526/07
However, the right of access to a court is not absolute and may be subject to limitations that do not restrict or reduce the access left to an individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired (see Markovic and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 1398/03, § 99, ECHR 2006-XIV, and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 230, ECHR 2012). - EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2017 - 49526/07
The Court reiterates that the right of access to a court - that is, the right to institute proceedings before the courts in civil matters - constitutes an element which is inherent in the right set out in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18, and, as a recent authority, Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, § 120, 23 June 2016). - EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08
CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2017 - 49526/07
Having regard to the particular circumstances of the case and the submissions of the parties, the Court considers that the main legal question in the present application concerned the impossibility for the applicant to obtain judicial review of the substance of his complaint raised under Article 8. Having examined this question under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling in respect of this part of the application (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, with further references).
- EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 14156/07
HAKOBYAN AND AMIRKHANYAN v. ARMENIA
Other judges of the Court have also spoken out in the past against this judicial approach, which I consider erroneous (see, inter alia, the dissenting opinions of judges Bo?.njak and K?«ris in the case of Petukhov v. Ukraine (no. 2) (no. 41216/13, 12 March 2019), judges Nußberger and Ranzoni in Kuzmenko v. Ukraine (no. 49526/07, 9 March 2017), judge De Gaetano in Mariusz Lewandowski v. Poland (no. 66484/09, 3 July 2012), judge Mularoni in Ki??mir v. Turkey (no. 27306/95, 31 May 2005), judges Tulkens, Spielmann and Laffranque in Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC] (no. 36760/06, ECHR 2012), and judges Rozakis, Bratza, Bonello, Loucaides and Jociene in Draon v. France [GC] (no. 1513/03, 6 October 2005)).