Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  URBANEK v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of 6-1 (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 35123/05

  The Court has ruled that, guaranteeing to litigants an effective right of access to a court for the determination of their "civil rights and obligations", Article 6 § 1 leaves to the State a free choice of the means to be used towards this end, but while the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in that respect, the final decision as to the observance of the Convention's requirements rests with the Court (see Golder and Z. and Others, ibid.; mutatis mutandis, Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 26, Series A no. 32; and Kreuz, cited above, § 53).

  This is particularly so of the right of access to the courts in view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial (see Kreuz, cited above, § 57, and Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, § 24).

• EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 28249/95

  KREUZ c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 35123/05

  This feature distinguished the present case from the case of Kreuz v. Poland (no. 28249/95, § 66, ECHR 2001-VI).

  I did so out of a sense of discipline and respect for the Court's case-law, accepting that the requirement to pay fees to civil courts in connection with claims they are asked to determine cannot be regarded as a restriction on the right of access to a court that is incompatible per se with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, § 60, ECHR 2001-VI).

• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 35123/05

  And in civil matters one can scarcely conceive of the rule of law without there being a possibility of having access to the courts (see, among many other authorities, Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 January 1975, §§ 34 in fine and 35-36, Series A no. 18; Z. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, §§ 91-93, ECHR 2001-V; and Kreuz, cited above, § 52).

 
• EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 73547/01

  JEDAMSKI AND JEDAMSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 35123/05

  It has held for instance that the imposition of very substantial fees, resulting in the respective applicants' desisting from the claim and the case not being heard by a court, impaired the very essence of their right of access to a court (see Kreuz, cited above, § 66; Jedamski and Jedamska v. Poland, no. 73547/01, § 66, 26 July 2005; and Weissman and Others v. Romania, no. 63945/00, §§ 38-40, ECHR 2006-VII (extracts); these three cases concerned excessive court fees imposed at the initial stage of the proceedings; in addition, see Kniat v. Poland, no. 71731/01, § 46, 26 July 2005, regarding the imposition of excessive court fees at the appeal stage).
• EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 71731/01

  KNIAT v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 35123/05

  It has held for instance that the imposition of very substantial fees, resulting in the respective applicants' desisting from the claim and the case not being heard by a court, impaired the very essence of their right of access to a court (see Kreuz, cited above, § 66; Jedamski and Jedamska v. Poland, no. 73547/01, § 66, 26 July 2005; and Weissman and Others v. Romania, no. 63945/00, §§ 38-40, ECHR 2006-VII (extracts); these three cases concerned excessive court fees imposed at the initial stage of the proceedings; in addition, see Kniat v. Poland, no. 71731/01, § 46, 26 July 2005, regarding the imposition of excessive court fees at the appeal stage).
• EGMR, 24.05.2006 - 63945/00

  WEISSMAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 35123/05

  It has held for instance that the imposition of very substantial fees, resulting in the respective applicants' desisting from the claim and the case not being heard by a court, impaired the very essence of their right of access to a court (see Kreuz, cited above, § 66; Jedamski and Jedamska v. Poland, no. 73547/01, § 66, 26 July 2005; and Weissman and Others v. Romania, no. 63945/00, §§ 38-40, ECHR 2006-VII (extracts); these three cases concerned excessive court fees imposed at the initial stage of the proceedings; in addition, see Kniat v. Poland, no. 71731/01, § 46, 26 July 2005, regarding the imposition of excessive court fees at the appeal stage).

• EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 59914/16

  NALBANT AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The system, however, has to be sufficiently flexible to allow a party to benefit from full or partial exemption from the payment of court fees or a reduction in the court fees (see Urbanek v. Austria, no. 35123/05, §§ 60-65, 9 December 2010, and, more recently, Chorbadzhiyski and Krasteva v. Bulgaria, no. 54991/10, § 64, 2 April 2020).
• EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 5337/13

  SEDRAKYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court does not see anything unusual in a system in which court fees for pecuniary claims are dependent on the amount of dispute (see Urbanek v. Austria, no. 35123/05, § 57, 9 December 2010).
• EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 24788/17

  CANÈ AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  The Court reiterates that the role of Article 6 § 1 in relation to Article 13 is that of a lex specialis, the requirements of Article 13 being absorbed by the more stringent requirements of Article 6 § 1 (see, for example, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 146, ECHR 2000-XI, Urbanek v. Austria, no. 35123/05, § 70, 9 December 2010; and Curmi v. Malta, no. 2243/10, § 57, 22 November 2011).