Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 18064/91, 46/1993/441/520 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
HIRO BALANI c. ESPAGNE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Violation de l'Art. 6-1 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
HIRO BALANI v. SPAIN
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings ... - juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 30.03.1993 - 18064/91
- EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 18064/91, 46/1993/441/520
Wird zitiert von ... (117) Neu Zitiert selbst (1)
- EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90
VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 18064/91
1 (art. 6-1) oblige les tribunaux à motiver leurs décisions, mais qu'il ne peut se comprendre comme exigeant une réponse détaillée à chaque argument (voir l'arrêt Van de Hurk c. Pays-Bas du 19 avril 1994, série A no 288, p. 20, par. 61).
- EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06
Chodorkowski: Moskauer Prozesse sind unfair
Usually this question appears in the context of Article 6 § 1 (see Hiro Balani v. Spain, 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-B), but the Court has also examined it under Article 5 § 4 (see Nikolova, cited above, § 61). - EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01
Budweiser-Streit
The Court did, however, find a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the Spanish Supreme Court's failure to examine a ground of appeal by the applicant company alleging noncompliance with the priority rule ( Hiro Balani v. Spain , judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-B, p. 30, § 28). - EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 18116/15
PETROVIC AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO
If, however, a submission would, if accepted, be decisive for the outcome of the case, it may require a specific and express reply by the court in its judgment (see Hiro Balani v. Spain, 9 December 1994, §§ 27-28, Series A no. 303-B, and Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, §§ 29-30, Series A no. 303-A).If, however, a submission would, if accepted, be decisive for the outcome of the case, as has been the applicants" situation in the present case, it may require a specific and express reply by the court in its judgment (see Hiro Balani v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 27, Series A no. 303-B, and Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 29, Series A no. 303-A).
- EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 35485/05
HUSEYN AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
The extent to which this duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision and must be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case (see Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 29, Series A no. 303-A, and Hiro Balani v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 27, Series A no. 303-B). - EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 37235/97
SOFRI et AUTRES contre l'ITALIE
Courts must reply to parties" essential arguments, but the extent to which that duty applies may vary in accordance with the nature of the decision and must therefore be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case (Hiro Balani v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-B, pp. 29-30, § 27; and Burg v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, 28 January 2003). - EuGH, 26.09.2019 - C-358/19
PITEE Fogyasztóvédelmi Egyesület/ Kommission
Ein Gericht muss zwar seine Entscheidungen so begründen, dass die Bürger von ihrem Rechtsbehelf wirksam Gebrauch machen können, aber es muss nicht auf alle Argumente der Parteien detailliert antworten (vgl. u. a. EGMR, 9. Dezember 1994, Hiro Balani gegen Spanien, CE:ECHR:1994:1209JUD001806491, § 27, 9. Dezember 1994, Ruiz Torija gegen Spanien, CE:ECHR:1994:1209JUD001839091, § 30, und 27. September 2001, Hirvisaari gegen Finnland, CE:ECHR:2001:0927JUD004968499, Rn. 30). - EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 12211/09
UCHE c. SUISSE
Un pareil examen ne s'impose pas pour constater que le moyen en cause était du moins pertinent (Hiro Balani c. Espagne, 9 décembre 1994, § 28, série A no 303-B, Ruiz Torija, précité, § 30, et Vojtechová c. Slovaquie, no 59102/08, § 40, 25 septembre 2012). - EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 15256/05
TCHANKOTADZE v. GEORGIA
However, even though a domestic court has a certain margin of appreciation when choosing arguments in a particular case and admitting evidence in support of the parties" submissions, the injured party can expect a specific and express reply from the court to those submissions which are decisive for the outcome of the proceedings in question (see Hiro Balani v. Spain, 9 December 1994, §§ 27-28, Series A no. 303-B; Gradinar v. Moldova, no. 7170/02, §§ 107-108, 8 April 2008; and Gheorghe v. Romania, no. 19215/04, § 43, 15 March 2007). - EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 13431/07
FRANCESCO QUATTRONE c. ITALIE
L'étendue de cette obligation peut varier selon la nature de la décision et doit s'analyser à la lumière des circonstances de chaque espèce (Ruiz Torija c. Espagne, arrêt du 9 décembre 1994, § 29, série A no 303-A; Hiro Balani c. Espagne, arrêt du 9 décembre 1994, § 27, série A no 303-B; Higgins et autres c. France, arrêt du 19 février 1998, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1998-I, p. 60, § 42). - EGMR, 24.10.2017 - 57818/10
TIBET MENTES AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
Without requiring a detailed answer to every argument put forward by a complainant, this obligation nevertheless presupposes that a party to judicial proceedings can expect a specific and express reply to those submissions which are decisive for the outcome of the proceedings in question (ibid., § 30; see also, Hiro Balani v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 28, Series A no. 303-B; Gheorghe v. Romania, no. 19215/04, § 43, 15 March 2007; and Deryan v. Turkey, no. 41721/04, § 33, 21 July 2015). - EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 18390/91
RUIZ TORIJA c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 25.07.2002 - 45238/99
PEROTE PELLON c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 15.02.2000 - 38695/97
GARCÍA MANIBARDO c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 12.11.2020 - 19511/16
HONNER c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 12285/09
DRYZEK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 10111/06
Pedro Ramos gegen die Schweiz betreffend unentgeltliche Rechtspflege
- EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 32283/04
MELTEX LTD AND MOVSESYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 15.03.2007 - 19215/04
GHEORGHE v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 34197/02
LUKA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 13274/07
ROMAN c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 32303/13
MIROVNI INSTITUT v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 6232/09
MADER c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 7963/05
IVAN STOYANOV VASILEV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 09.05.2023 - 61177/09
KORKUT ET AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL TÜRKIYE c. TÜRKIYE
- EGMR, 06.12.2022 - 2463/12
MNATSAKANYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 16.06.2020 - 72164/14
COVALENCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 55092/16
BALTIC MASTER LTD. v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 53561/09
URAT v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 39407/03
CIHANGIR YILDIZ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 13006/13
IVINOVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 46154/11
VALLE PIERIMPIE SOCIETA AGRICOLA S.P.A. c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 25.03.2010 - 37193/07
PARASKEVA TODOROVA c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 36815/03
ATANASOVSKI v.
- EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 35738/03
SAPEYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 12686/03
Gorou ./. Griechenland
- EGMR, 19.09.2023 - 33183/07
PRIMA SH.P.K. AND KOZMAI v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 07.02.2023 - 41394/15
PAUN JOVANOVIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 01.12.2022 - 646/17
JURICIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 41870/05
FERREIRA ALVES c. PORTUGAL (N° 4)
- EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 44301/02
LOUIS c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 25053/05
FERREIRA ALVES c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 49572/99
GENITEAU contre la FRANCE
- EGMR - 3249/22 (anhängig)
JELAVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 63592/19
SALONA GRADITELJ D.D. v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 25.01.2022 - 24697/14
G I SERVICE OOD v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 54748/09
LONCA ORGANIZASYON ELEKTRONIK GIDA MEDYA YAYINCILIK SANAYI VE TICARET A.S. v. …
- EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 29842/11
MASLENNIKOV c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 46351/08
MELNIC v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 03.07.2018 - 38134/10
IONESCU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 64734/11
LEUSKA AND OTHERS v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 10375/08
S.S. YENIKÖY KONUT YAPI KOOPERATIFI v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 26.09.2017 - 24059/13
MAZZARELLA c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 76522/12
MUGOSA v. MONTENEGRO
- EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 26029/08
OREZEANU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 29.03.2016 - 9590/07
STEFANOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 51557/08
FLETTER c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 41721/04
DERYAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 11.03.2014 - 32339/05
FEISAN v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 50054/07
MITROFAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 10265/04
MOCUTA v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 15001/04
IVANOV ET PETROVA c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 30844/06
GALENA VRANISKOSKA v.
- EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 11369/04
GOLEMANOVA c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 34828/02
CARLAN c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 26732/03
ANTICA ET SOCIÉTÉ " R " c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 21468/03
RACHE ET OZON c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 36205/06
GIOSAKIS c. GRECE (N° 2)
- EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 35944/03
GASPARYAN v. ARMENIA (No. 1)
- EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 31553/03
AMIRYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 37780/02
MELTEX LTD v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 75240/01
BURZO c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 58472/00
DIMA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 06.07.2006 - 10656/03
DANYADI v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 36549/03
HARUTYUNYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 25.01.2005 - 77239/01
CASSA SARL c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 21.10.2004 - 37784/02
NOYAN TAPAN LTD v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 16.09.2003 - 56588/00
CHESNAY contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 03.05.2001 - 57735/00
GOURDON contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 07.09.1999 - 34595/97
BOSONI contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 32997/15
BULIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 44343/14
LECKA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 30543/13
NEDELCHEV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 52205/10
NICHIFOR v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 10.06.2014 - 31575/07
DURMUS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 25658/03
PASCALE c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 59102/08
VOJTECHOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 17814/10
TOURISME D'AFFAIRES c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 5450/02
ANTONESCU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 56471/08
BERGILLOS MORETON (I) c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 16.02.2010 - 31911/03
ALBERT c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 22.11.2007 - 12876/04
S.C.I. PLELO-CADIOU c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 15610/03
LEDUC c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 03.12.2002 - 35671/97
LINDNER AND HAMMERMAYER v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 50419/99
MAILLET contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 40171/98
BOONS v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34359/97
GAUCHER contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 08.06.1999 - 33051/96
BOULENGE contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 02.02.1999 - 31908/96
DRIEMOND BOUW BV v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EKMR, 16.04.1998 - 28288/95
PETERSEN v. DENMARK
- EKMR, 22.10.1997 - 31462/96
MOSTERD v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EKMR, 22.10.1997 - 32372/96
TIMMER AND 'T LAAKSE HOOGH B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EKMR, 22.10.1997 - 31469/96
VAN DER TAS v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EKMR, 10.09.1997 - 32779/96
A.L.J.G., L.C.M.G. AND H.S. v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EKMR, 21.05.1997 - 30932/96
LANDELIJKE SPECIALISTEN VERENIGING v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EKMR, 07.09.1995 - 14561/89
J.S. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 22.09.2022 - 28539/16
CVETKOVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 10.05.2022 - 2759/19
GALIER c. LUXEMBOURG
- EGMR, 05.10.2021 - 13769/15
GREGACEVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 26437/08
UGURLU AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 13196/07
UNCUOGLU v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 27524/06
VIDAKOVIC v. MONTENEGRO
- EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 12372/04
PICART c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 04.05.2004 - 45228/99
SPANG contre la SUISSE
- EGMR, 27.04.2021 - 47124/10
YILDIZ v. TURKEY
- EKMR, 14.01.1998 - 27521/95
STÜRM v. SWITZERLAND
- EKMR, 04.09.1996 - 26953/95
H.H. v. SWITZERLAND
- EKMR, 26.06.1996 - 22925/93
KÖNIG v. AUSTRIA