Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AZZOPARDI AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 23.04.1987 - 9316/81

  Lechner und Hess ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 16467/17

  In this connection the Court reiterates that when determining the period to be taken into account for the purposes of the length of proceedings, in the civil sphere, while the "reasonable time" usually begins at the moment the action was instituted before the tribunal (see, for example, Erkner and Hofauer v. Austria, 23 April 1987, § 64, Series A no. 117), it is also conceivable that in certain circumstances the period might begin earlier (see Golder, cited above, § 32).
• EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 38805/97

  K. c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 16467/17

  This is exceptional and has been accepted where, for example, certain preliminary steps were a necessary prerequisite to the proceedings (see, for example, K. v. Italy, no. 38805/97, § 35, ECHR 2004-VIII).
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 16467/17

  In this way, Article 6 § 1 embodies the "right to a court", of which the right of access, that is, the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters, is one particular aspect (see Naït-Liman v. Switzerland [GC], no. 51357/07, § 113, 15 March 2018, and Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18).

 
• EGMR, 29.08.2000 - 39971/98

  ORGANISATION NATIONALE DES SYNDICATS D'INFIRMIERS LIBÉRAUX (ONSIL) contre la …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 16467/17

  However, laws may be enacted before the start of proceedings (see Organisation nationale des syndicats d'infirmiers libéraux (ONSIL) v. France (dec.), no. 39971/98, ECHR 2000-IX) and it is possible for general legislation which may prove unfavourable to litigants to be enacted if it did not actually target pending judicial proceedings and was not aimed at circumventing the principle of the rule of law (see Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, no. 62543/00, § 72, ECHR 2004-III).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 16467/17

  Further, the Court has repeatedly ruled that although the legislature is not prevented from regulating, through new retrospective provisions, rights derived from the laws in force, the principle of the rule of law and the notion of a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 preclude, except for compelling public interest reasons, interference by the legislature with the administration of justice designed to influence the judicial determination of a dispute (see, among many other authorities, Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 49, Series A no. 301-B; National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom, 23 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII and Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and Others v. France [GC], nos. 24846/94 and 34165/96 to 34173/96, § 57, ECHR 1999-VII).
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 24846/94

  ZIELINSKI ET PRADAL & GONZALEZ ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 16467/17

  Further, the Court has repeatedly ruled that although the legislature is not prevented from regulating, through new retrospective provisions, rights derived from the laws in force, the principle of the rule of law and the notion of a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 preclude, except for compelling public interest reasons, interference by the legislature with the administration of justice designed to influence the judicial determination of a dispute (see, among many other authorities, Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 49, Series A no. 301-B; National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom, 23 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII and Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and Others v. France [GC], nos. 24846/94 and 34165/96 to 34173/96, § 57, ECHR 1999-VII).
• EGMR, 27.04.2004 - 62543/00

  GORRAIZ LIZARRAGA ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 16467/17

  However, laws may be enacted before the start of proceedings (see Organisation nationale des syndicats d'infirmiers libéraux (ONSIL) v. France (dec.), no. 39971/98, ECHR 2000-IX) and it is possible for general legislation which may prove unfavourable to litigants to be enacted if it did not actually target pending judicial proceedings and was not aimed at circumventing the principle of the rule of law (see Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, no. 62543/00, § 72, ECHR 2004-III).
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 48357/07

  AZIENDA AGRICOLA SILVERFUNGHI S.A.S. AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 16467/17

  48357/07 and 3 others, § 76, 24 June 2014).

• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 37474/21

  CHEMEL AND TABONE v. MALTA

  16467/17 and 24115/17, § 51, 12 March 2019).
• EGMR, 25.03.2021 - 14013/19

  CAUCHI v. MALTA

  16467/17 and 24115/17, 12 March 2019).
• VG Frankfurt/Main, 28.01.2021 - 10 K 4784/17

  Afghanistan: Flüchtlingsschutz für Regierungsmitarbeiter; Abschiebungsverbot für …

  16467/17; in d i e s e m Sinne auch VG Stuttgart, Urteil v o m 18. Mai 2020 - A 1 K.

 
• VG Frankfurt/Main, 08.01.2021 - 10 K 4592/17

  Afghanistan: inländische Fluchtalternative nicht zumutbar; Bedrohung durch …

  16467/17; in diesem Sinne auch VG Stuttgart, Urteil vom 18. Mai 2020 - A 1 K.
• EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 10149/13

  SERBIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH v. CROATIA

  The Court therefore considers that it may leave open the issue of applicability of Article 6 § 1 in the present case, as well as the issue whether the enactment of the 2004 Rules and their application in the applicant monastery's case amounted to legislative interference in the pending proceedings within the meaning of its case-law developed under Article 6 § 1 (see, for example, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 111-33, ECHR 2006-V, and Azzopardi and Others v. Malta (dec.), no. 16467/17, §§ 44-45, 12 March 2019, with further references to the Court's case-law).
• EGMR, 30.03.2021 - 22789/19

  DABANLI c. TURQUIE

  Son objectif semble avoir été de tirer profit d'une situation qu'il a pu percevoir comme une aubaine (voir OGIS-Institut Stanislas, OGEC Saint-Pie X et Blanche de Castille et autres c. France, précité, § 71, Azzopardi et autres c. Malte (déc.), no 16467/17 et 24115/17, 12 mars 2019) et ainsi de se faire rembourser les sommes dont il s'était acquitté au titre desdits coûts et ce en se livrant à une sorte de forum shopping consistant à opter pour la saisine de l'ordre juridictionnel le plus favorable à son objectif.