Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STECK-RISCH AND OTHERS v. LIECHTENSTEIN

  Art. 6 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 32772/02

  Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2010 - 29061/08

  Secondly, the Court reiterates that the role of the Committee of Ministers, under Article 46 § 2 of the Convention, to supervise the execution of the Court's judgments does not mean that measures taken by a respondent State to implement a judgment delivered by the Court cannot raise a new issue undecided by the judgment and thus form the subject of a new application that may be dealt with by the Court (see, inter alia, Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 43, ECHR 2003-IV, and Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 62, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 53470/99

  MEHEMI c. FRANCE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2010 - 29061/08

  Secondly, the Court reiterates that the role of the Committee of Ministers, under Article 46 § 2 of the Convention, to supervise the execution of the Court's judgments does not mean that measures taken by a respondent State to implement a judgment delivered by the Court cannot raise a new issue undecided by the judgment and thus form the subject of a new application that may be dealt with by the Court (see, inter alia, Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 43, ECHR 2003-IV, and Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 62, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2010 - 29061/08

  This discretion as to the manner of execution of a judgment reflected the freedom of choice attaching to the primary obligation of the Contracting States under the Convention to secure the rights and freedoms guaranteed (the Court referred to Assanidze v. Georgia, no. 71503/01, § 202, ECHR 2004-II).

• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  Si tel n'est pas le cas, il lui faudra en deuxième lieu rechercher si les garanties de la Convention, en particulier celles découlant de l'article 6 § 1, devaient s'appliquer à la procédure d'examen du pourvoi exceptionnel (Steck-Risch et autres c. Liechtenstein (déc.), no 29061/08, 11 mai 2010) et, dans l'affirmative, si les exigences de l'article 6 § 1 ont été respectées.
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 5056/10

  Emre ./. Schweiz

  Ces éléments suffisent pour permettre à la Cour de conclure que l'arrêt du Tribunal fédéral du 6 juillet 2009 constitue un fait nouveau, susceptible de donner lieu à une nouvelle atteinte à l'article 8 (Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT), précité, § 65), pour l'examen de laquelle la Cour est compétente (voir, a contrio, Steck-Risch et autres c. Liechtenstein (déc.), no 29061/08, 11 mai 2010).
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05

  IVANTOC AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  The Chamber could have looked more carefully at previous cases in which the Court decided that complaints about the unsatisfactory execution of its judgments were outside its competence ratione materiae (in particular, Lyons and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 15227/93, ECHR 2003-IX; Steck-Risch and Others v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 29061/08, 11 May 2010; Schelling v. Austria (dec.), no. 46128/07, 16 September 2010; and Kafkaris v. Cyprus (no.2) (dec.), no. 9644/09, 21 June 2011).

 
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 41561/07

  THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN - PIRIN AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (No. 2)

  Unlike that case and other similar cases (see Fischer v. Austria (dec.), no. 27569/02, ECHR 2003-VI; Lyons v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 15227/03, ECHR 2003-IX; Krcmár v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 69190/01; Hakkar v. France (dec.), no. 43580/04, 7 April 2009; Steck-Risch and Others v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 29061/08, 11 May 2010; and Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 5980/07, 6 July 2010), the present case does not concern reopening of domestic proceedings, but two fresh sets of proceedings in which the applicant party sought to be registered anew.
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 50421/08

  SIDABRAS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA

  Such a complaint will, in accordance with the Court's case-law, be declared inadmissible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention (see, for example, Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 5980/07, 6 July 2010; Steck-Risch and Others v. Liechtenstein (dec.) no. 29061/08, 11 May 2010; Günes v. Turkey (dec.), no. 17210/09, 2 July 2013; and Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 35, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 28727/11

  KUDESHKINA v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  The Government contended that in the above-cited cases of Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT), Kafkaris and also in Steck-Risch and Others v. Liechtenstein ((dec.), no. 29061/08, 11 May 2010) the supervision of the Committee of Ministers had been finished before the applicant's new complaints had reached the Court.
• EGMR, 25.02.2014 - 12547/06

  OSTACE c. ROUMANIE

  La Cour rappelle sa jurisprudence constante selon laquelle l'article 6 de la Convention ne garantit pas le droit à la réouverture d'une procédure et est inapplicable à une procédure d'examen d'une demande tendant à la révision d'un procès civil, si cette demande est déclarée irrecevable (voir, parmi d'autres, Sablon c. Belgique, no 36445/97, § 86, 10 avril 2001, Steck-Risch et autres c. Liechtenstein (déc.), no 29061/08, 11 mai 2010, et Hurter c. Suisse, (déc.), no 48111/07, 15 mai 2012).
• EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 66338/09

  YAREMENKO v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  The Government referred to the Court's case-law in which applicants" unsuccessful attempts to obtain a reopening of proceedings, which the Court had previously found to be in violation of the Convention, had been declared inadmissible (Lyons and Others v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 15227/03, ECHR 2003-IX, and Steck-Risch and Others v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 29061/08, 11 May 2010).
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 49201/06

  RIZI v. ALBANIA

  Moreover, Article 6 does not guarantee a right to re-open the proceedings which have been terminated by a final decision (see, amongst others, Kolu, cited above; Schelling v. Austria (no. 2) (dec.), no. 46128/07, 16 September 2010; Steck-Risch and Others v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 29061/08, 11 May 2010; Mumladze v. Georgia, no. 30097/03, § 35, 8 January 2008; compare and contrast San Leonard Band Club v. Malta, no. 77562/01, §§ 40-48, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 33800/14

  HARABIN v. SLOVAKIA

  Secondly, insofar as it is not so prevented, it must examine whether the domestic proceedings on the applicant's request for reopening attracted the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Steck-Risch and Others v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 29061/08, 11 May 2010) and, if so, whether the requirements of that Article were complied with.
• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 48111/07

  HURTER c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 07.04.2015 - 53815/11

  RÓZSA v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 11.03.2014 - 557/12

  DYBEKU v. ALBANIA