Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 20347/03 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,46011) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PLAKHTEYEV AND PLAKHTEYEVA v. UKRAINE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2 MRK
Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 20347/03
In this way it embodies the "right to a court", of which the right of access, that is the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters, constitutes one aspect (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, pp. 17-18, §§ 35-36). - EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78
ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 20347/03
Where the individual's access is limited either by operation of law or in fact, the Court will examine whether the limitation imposed impaired the essence of the right and in particular whether it pursued a legitimate aim and there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, pp. 24-25, § 57). - EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91
TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 20347/03
It may be subject to legitimate restrictions, for example, statutory limitation periods, security for costs orders, regulations concerning minors and persons of unsound mind (see Stubbings and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 1996, Reports 1996-IV, pp. 1502-3, §§ 51-52; and Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316-B, pp. 80-81, §§ 62-67). - EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95
DALBAN v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 20347/03
In these circumstances the Court finds that the applicants cannot be regarded as victims in respect of their complaint about unlawful confiscation as this violation was recognised at the national level and compensation was provided (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI). - EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 43626/02
VIKTOR KONOVALOV CONTRE LA RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 20347/03
It observes that the seizure and retention of the objects by the authorities amounted to a restriction on their use by the applicants and thus fell under the scope of the second paragraph of Article 1 concerning "a control of the use of property" (see, mutatis mutandis, Viktor Konovalov v. Russia, no. 43626/02, § 41, 24 May 2007).