Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 11.01.2001 - 38460/97   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2001,32540
EGMR, 11.01.2001 - 38460/97 (https://dejure.org/2001,32540)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11.01.2001 - 38460/97 (https://dejure.org/2001,32540)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11. Januar 2001 - 38460/97 (https://dejure.org/2001,32540)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2001,32540) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    PLATAKOU c. GRECE

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 14+6 MRK
    Exception préliminaire rejetée Violation de l'art. 6-1 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 14+6 Violation de P1-1 Dommage matériel - réparation pécuniaire Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement frais et ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    PLATAKOU v. GREECE

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 14+6 MRK
    Preliminary objection rejected Violation of Art. 6-1 Not necessary to examine Art. 14+6 Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses award - Convention ...

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (55)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

  • EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

    GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2001 - 38460/97
    This "right to a court", of which the right of access is an aspect, may be relied on by anyone who considers on arguable grounds that an interference with the exercise of his civil rights is unlawful and complains that he or she has not had the possibility of submitting that claim to a tribunal meeting the requirements of Article 6 § 1 (see, among other authorities, Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 18, § 36).
  • EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

    DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2001 - 38460/97
    Further, the Court reiterates that while Article 6 of the Convention does not compel the Contracting States to set up courts of appeal or of cassation, a State which does institute such courts is required to ensure that persons amenable to the law shall enjoy before these courts the fundamental guarantees contained in Article 6 (see, among other authorities, Delcourt v. Belgium, judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, pp. 13-15, § 25).
  • EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

    DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2001 - 38460/97
    It implies that each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent (see Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, judgment of 27 October 1993, Series A no. 274, p. 19, § 33).
  • EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

    SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2001 - 38460/97
    The Court reiterates that an interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions must strike a "fair balance" between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights (see, among other authorities, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 26, § 69).
  • EGMR, 09.09.2014 - 43730/07

    GAJTANI c. SUISSE

    En effet, elle a fait subir à la requérante les conséquences d'une faute dont la responsabilité primaire revenait à l'instance inférieure (voir, en ce sens, Platakou c. Grèce, no 38460/97, § 39, CEDH 2001-I), qui avait méconnu le nouveau délai de dix jours applicable en la matière depuis le 1er janvier 2007 (paragraphes 27 et 28 ci-dessus), ce qui apparaît disproportionné par rapport aux buts légitimes visés - en l'occurrence la bonne administration de la justice et le respect de la sécurité juridique -, et cela d'autant plus s'agissant d'une procédure de retour d'enfants selon la Convention de La Haye sur les enlèvements internationaux, à la fois complexe et susceptible d'avoir des conséquences très graves et délicates pour les personnes concernées (voir, mutatis mutandis, Assunção Chaves, précité, § 82).

    Dans la présente espèce, la requérante a été pénalisée par la décision d'irrecevabilité du Tribunal fédéral, alors que l'erreur commise relève principalement de la responsabilité du tribunal d'appel (voir paragraphe 75 ; comparer avec Sotiris et Nikos Koutras ATTEE, précité, § 21, et Platakou c. Grèce, no 38460/97, § 39, CEDH 2001-I ; voir également Ferré Gisbert c. Espagne, no 39590/05, § 30, 13 octobre 2009).

  • EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 40160/12

    ZUBAC v. CROATIA

    In connection with the foregoing, the Court reiterates that the risk of any mistake made by a State authority must be borne by the State, and errors must not be remedied at the expense of the individual concerned, (see Platakou v. Greece, no. 38460/97, § 39, ECHR 2001-I; Freitag v. Germany, no. 71440/01, §§ 37-42, 19 July 2007; and Simecki, cited above, § 46).

    These judgments concern a decision to declare an application inadmissible as being served on the respondent party out of time, even though it had been the court bailiff's responsibility to effect service (Platakou v. Greece, no. 38460/97, § 39, ECHR 2001-I), a decision to declare a request by a party to a court inadmissible as being lodged out of time, even though the delay had mainly resulted from the conduct of another court in transferring the request to the competent court (Freitag v. Germany, no. 71440/01, § 41, 19 July 2007), a court's failure to properly serve an order, so that it became final without ever reaching the applicant, and a decision to declare an appeal against another order inadmissible as being lodged out of time, even though the court had made a mistake regarding the date on which the appeal had been lodged (Simecki v. Croatia, no. 15253/10, § 46, 30 April 2014).

  • EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 28856/95

    JOKELA v. FINLAND

    If, however, the compensation bears no reasonable relation to the value of the expropriated land, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 has been violated (see Malama v. Greece, no. 43622/98, § 52, ECHR 2001-II, and Platakou v. Greece, no. 38460/97, § 57, ECHR 2001-I).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht