Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GOGOLADZE v. GEORGIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 22.02.1984 - 8209/78

  Sutter ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 4683/03

  As to the applicant's arguments that her oral pleadings before the cassation court were indispensable in order to clarify some purely technical issues and prove that she had had standing to challenge the authority of the respondent company's representative, the Court reiterates that legal arguments, as well as those relating to technical factual matters, may be presented effectively in writing rather than orally (see, for example, Pursiheimo v. Finland (dec.), no. 57795/00, 25 November 2003; Döry v. Sweden, no. 28394/95, § 37, 12 November 2002; Sutter v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1984, Series A no. 74, § 30; Coorplan-Jenni GmbH and Hascic v. Austria, no. 10523/02, § 63, 27 July 2006; Salomonsson v. Sweden, no. 38978/97, § 39, 12 November 2002; Göç v. Turkey [GC], no. 36590/97, § 51, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 4683/03

  However, the Court reiterates that the domestic courts are best placed to assess the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case and to interpret and apply the rules of substantive and procedural law (see, amongst many authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, § 32; Gurepka v. Ukraine, no. 61406/00, § 45, 6 September 2005).
• EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 28394/95

  DÖRY v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 4683/03

  As to the applicant's arguments that her oral pleadings before the cassation court were indispensable in order to clarify some purely technical issues and prove that she had had standing to challenge the authority of the respondent company's representative, the Court reiterates that legal arguments, as well as those relating to technical factual matters, may be presented effectively in writing rather than orally (see, for example, Pursiheimo v. Finland (dec.), no. 57795/00, 25 November 2003; Döry v. Sweden, no. 28394/95, § 37, 12 November 2002; Sutter v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1984, Series A no. 74, § 30; Coorplan-Jenni GmbH and Hascic v. Austria, no. 10523/02, § 63, 27 July 2006; Salomonsson v. Sweden, no. 38978/97, § 39, 12 November 2002; Göç v. Turkey [GC], no. 36590/97, § 51, ECHR 2002-V).

 
• EGMR, 25.11.1993 - 14282/88

  ZANDER v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 4683/03

  Nor could its outcome be considered to be directly decisive for the examination of the merits of the applicant's pecuniary action (see, a contrario, Rizhamadze, cited above, § 24; Zander v. Sweden, judgment of 25 November 1993, Series A no. 279-B, p. 38, § 22; Moreira de Azevedo v. Portugal, judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 189, p. 17, § 66).
• EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 38978/97

  SALOMONSSON v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 4683/03

  As to the applicant's arguments that her oral pleadings before the cassation court were indispensable in order to clarify some purely technical issues and prove that she had had standing to challenge the authority of the respondent company's representative, the Court reiterates that legal arguments, as well as those relating to technical factual matters, may be presented effectively in writing rather than orally (see, for example, Pursiheimo v. Finland (dec.), no. 57795/00, 25 November 2003; Döry v. Sweden, no. 28394/95, § 37, 12 November 2002; Sutter v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1984, Series A no. 74, § 30; Coorplan-Jenni GmbH and Hascic v. Austria, no. 10523/02, § 63, 27 July 2006; Salomonsson v. Sweden, no. 38978/97, § 39, 12 November 2002; Göç v. Turkey [GC], no. 36590/97, § 51, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 10523/02

  COORPLAN-JENNI GMBH AND HASCIC v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 4683/03

  As to the applicant's arguments that her oral pleadings before the cassation court were indispensable in order to clarify some purely technical issues and prove that she had had standing to challenge the authority of the respondent company's representative, the Court reiterates that legal arguments, as well as those relating to technical factual matters, may be presented effectively in writing rather than orally (see, for example, Pursiheimo v. Finland (dec.), no. 57795/00, 25 November 2003; Döry v. Sweden, no. 28394/95, § 37, 12 November 2002; Sutter v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1984, Series A no. 74, § 30; Coorplan-Jenni GmbH and Hascic v. Austria, no. 10523/02, § 63, 27 July 2006; Salomonsson v. Sweden, no. 38978/97, § 39, 12 November 2002; Göç v. Turkey [GC], no. 36590/97, § 51, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 25.11.2003 - 57795/00

  PURSIHEIMO v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 4683/03

  As to the applicant's arguments that her oral pleadings before the cassation court were indispensable in order to clarify some purely technical issues and prove that she had had standing to challenge the authority of the respondent company's representative, the Court reiterates that legal arguments, as well as those relating to technical factual matters, may be presented effectively in writing rather than orally (see, for example, Pursiheimo v. Finland (dec.), no. 57795/00, 25 November 2003; Döry v. Sweden, no. 28394/95, § 37, 12 November 2002; Sutter v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1984, Series A no. 74, § 30; Coorplan-Jenni GmbH and Hascic v. Austria, no. 10523/02, § 63, 27 July 2006; Salomonsson v. Sweden, no. 38978/97, § 39, 12 November 2002; Göç v. Turkey [GC], no. 36590/97, § 51, ECHR 2002-V).