Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HOARE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 16261/08

  The Court therefore considers that the costs orders in the present pursued a legitimate aim (see, mutatis mutandis, Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 61, Series A no. 316-B).

  In this respect, the Court notes that his situation should be distinguished from that of indigent litigants who are required to pay substantial sums by way of security for costs or court fees in the initial stages of the proceedings, thereby raising issues of access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 61, Series A no. 316-B; and more recently, Weissman and Others v. Romania, no. 63945/00, § 37, ECHR 2006-VII (extracts); Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, §§ 52-57, ECHR 2001-VI).

• EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

  LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 16261/08

  In particular, the requirement of lawfulness means that rules of domestic law must be sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable (see the Hentrich v. France judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, pp. 19-20, § 42, and the Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 47, § 110).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01

  Budweiser-Streit

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 16261/08

  The second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule" (see Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 62, ECHR 2007-...).

 
• EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 28249/95

  KREUZ c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 16261/08

  In this respect, the Court notes that his situation should be distinguished from that of indigent litigants who are required to pay substantial sums by way of security for costs or court fees in the initial stages of the proceedings, thereby raising issues of access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 61, Series A no. 316-B; and more recently, Weissman and Others v. Romania, no. 63945/00, § 37, ECHR 2006-VII (extracts); Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, §§ 52-57, ECHR 2001-VI).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 16261/08

  In this connection, the Court recalls that, insofar as a complaint may be understood to concern the assessment of evidence or the outcome of proceedings before the domestic courts, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by these courts unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 16261/08

  In particular, the requirement of lawfulness means that rules of domestic law must be sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable (see the Hentrich v. France judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, pp. 19-20, § 42, and the Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 47, § 110).
• EGMR, 24.05.2006 - 63945/00

  WEISSMAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 16261/08

  In this respect, the Court notes that his situation should be distinguished from that of indigent litigants who are required to pay substantial sums by way of security for costs or court fees in the initial stages of the proceedings, thereby raising issues of access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 61, Series A no. 316-B; and more recently, Weissman and Others v. Romania, no. 63945/00, § 37, ECHR 2006-VII (extracts); Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, §§ 52-57, ECHR 2001-VI).

• EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 24079/11

  JURESA v. CROATIA

  At this point it is important to reiterate that courts may depart from their well-established case-law, provided they give good and cogent reasons for doing so (see Hoare v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 16261/08, § 54, 12 April 2011).
• EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 53285/15

  ZAGORSKA v. BULGARIA

  This sum does not appear excessive, seeing the undeniable complexity of a forfeiture case (contrast, for example, National Movement Ekoglasnost v. Bulgaria, no. 31678/17, § 82, 15 December 2020, where the Court criticised as excessive the order for the applicant association to pay the equivalent of about EUR 6, 000 for the legal representation of an opposing party in reopening proceedings raising merely procedural issues), and the fact that the sum was awarded for three levels of jurisdiction (compare in that regard the considerations in Hoare v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 16261/08, § 60, 12 April 2011).