Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 36534/97   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2002,36963
EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 36534/97 (https://dejure.org/2002,36963)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11.07.2002 - 36534/97 (https://dejure.org/2002,36963)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11. Juli 2002 - 36534/97 (https://dejure.org/2002,36963)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2002,36963) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    OSU v. ITALY

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 6-1 No separate issue under Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings ...

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 ...Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

  • EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

    PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 36534/97
    Whilst the Court cannot speculate as to the outcome of the proceedings concerned had there been no violation of the Convention, it considers that the applicant suffered a loss of opportunity (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 80, ECHR 1999-II).
  • EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

    GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 36534/97
    The Court reiterates that the right to a court, of which the right of access is one aspect (see the Golder v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 18, § 36), is not absolute; it may be subject to limitations permitted by implication, particularly regarding the conditions of admissibility of an appeal.
  • EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

    SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 36534/97
    Having regard to its decision on Article 6 § 1, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine the case under Article 13 since its requirements are less strict than, and are here absorbed by those of Article 6 § 1 (see, notably, the following judgments: Sporrong and Lönnroth of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 32, § 88, and C.G. v. United Kingdom, n° 43373/98, § 53, unreported).
  • EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81

    MONNELL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 36534/97
    Moreover, the manner in which Article 6 applies to courts of appeal or of cassation must depend on the special features of the proceedings concerned and account must be taken of the entirety of the proceedings conducted in the domestic legal order and the court of cassation's role in them (see, for instance, the Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 115, p. 22, § 56, and the Helmers v. Sweden judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-A, p. 15, § 31); the conditions of admissibility of an appeal on points of law may be stricter than for an ordinary appeal (Levages Prestations Services v. France judgment of 23 October 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1544, § 45).
  • EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85

    HELMERS c. SUÈDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 36534/97
    Moreover, the manner in which Article 6 applies to courts of appeal or of cassation must depend on the special features of the proceedings concerned and account must be taken of the entirety of the proceedings conducted in the domestic legal order and the court of cassation's role in them (see, for instance, the Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 115, p. 22, § 56, and the Helmers v. Sweden judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-A, p. 15, § 31); the conditions of admissibility of an appeal on points of law may be stricter than for an ordinary appeal (Levages Prestations Services v. France judgment of 23 October 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1544, § 45).
  • EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 45611/13

    GREGURIC v. CROATIA

    This means, in particular, that the Court must satisfy itself that the application of such a limitation could be regarded as foreseeable for the applicants, having regard to the relevant legislation and case-law and the particular circumstances of the case (see Osu v. Italy, no. 36534/97, § 35, 11 July 2002; Lupas and Others v. Romania, nos. 1434/02 and 2 others, § 67, ECHR 2006-XV (extracts); Vrbica, cited above, § 72; Majski v. Croatia (no. 2), no. 16924/08, § 69, 19 July 2011; and Petko Petkov v. Bulgaria, no. 2834/06, § 30, 19 February 2013).
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