Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KEHAYA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violations of P1-1 Not necessary to examine question of fines under Art. 6-1 Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - reserved Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.12.2004 - 47797/99
• EGMR, 12.01.2006 - 47797/99, 68698/01
• EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 47797/99
• EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 47797/99

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 05.11.2002 - 36548/97

  PINCOVÁ ET PINC c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2006 - 47797/99

  The rule of law, one of the fundamental principles of a democratic society, is inherent in all the Articles of the Convention (see Pincová and Pinc v. the Czech Republic, no. 36548/97, § 45, ECHR 2002-VIII, with further references).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2006 - 47797/99

  Furthermore, a deprivation of property can only be justified if it is shown to be "in the public interest" and if it satisfies the requirement of proportionality by striking 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 Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, pp. 26-28, §§ 69-74).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 11.04.2018 - C-600/16

  National Iranian Tanker Company / Rat - Rechtsmittel - Gemeinsame Außen- und …

  123 Vgl. z. B. Urteile des EGMR vom 12. Januar 2006, Kehaya u. a./Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2006:0112JUD004779799, § 66), und vom 16. Januar 2014, Brletic/Kroatien (CE:ECHR: 2014:0116JUD004200910, § 43).

  125 Urteil des EGMR vom 12. Januar 2006, Kehaya u. a./Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2006:0112JUD004779799).

• EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 42009/10

  BRLETIC v. CROATIA

  The Court reiterates that the right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of the principles of rule of law and legal certainty, encompasses the requirement that where the courts have determined an issue with final effect, their ruling should not be called into question (see Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-VII, and Kehaya and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 47797/99 and 68698/01, § 61, 12 January 2006).
• EGMR, 31.05.2012 - 50208/06

  ESERTAS v. LITHUANIA

  As the Court has stated in previous cases, the right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of the principles of rule of law and legal certainty, encompasses the requirement that where the courts have finally determined an issue, their ruling should not be called into question (see Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-VII; Kehaya and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 47797/99 and 68698/01, § 61, 12 January 2006).
• EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 68053/10

  LOLOVA AND POPOVA v. BULGARIA

  In respect of the first complaint, the Court recalls its findings in previous cases that the right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of the principles of rule of law and legal certainty, encompasses the requirement that where the courts have finally determined an issue, their ruling should not be called into question (see Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-VII; Kehaya and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 47797/99 and 68698/01, § 61, 12 January 2006).