Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 10.12.2019 - 42152/10 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2019,47869) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ROGACH v. UKRAINE
Inadmissible (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
ROGACH v. UKRAINE
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2019 - 42152/10
The Court recalls that the right of access to court secured by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is not absolute, but may be subject to limitations; these are permitted by implication since the right of access by its very nature calls for regulation by the State (for the summary of the relevant case-law see, among many other authorities, Golder v. The United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 38, Series A no. 18; Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, § 59, ECHR 1999-I; and Wo?? v. Poland, no. 22860/02, § 98-100, ECHR 2006-VII). - EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 26083/94
WAITE AND KENNEDY v. GERMANY
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2019 - 42152/10
The Court recalls that the right of access to court secured by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is not absolute, but may be subject to limitations; these are permitted by implication since the right of access by its very nature calls for regulation by the State (for the summary of the relevant case-law see, among many other authorities, Golder v. The United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 38, Series A no. 18; Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, § 59, ECHR 1999-I; and Wo?? v. Poland, no. 22860/02, § 98-100, ECHR 2006-VII).
- EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 18076/12
VJOLA SH.P.K. AND DE SH.P.K. v. ALBANIA
In determining whether a limitation on access to court was permissible under the Convention the Court will look, inter alia, into whether the applicants had available to them reasonable alternative means to protect effectively their rights (see, for example, Waite and Kennedy, cited above, § 68; see also, for a similar situation, Rogach v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 42152/10, § 31, 10 December 2019 [Committee]).