Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 68747/11   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2018,26560
EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 68747/11 (https://dejure.org/2018,26560)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12.06.2018 - 68747/11 (https://dejure.org/2018,26560)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12. Juni 2018 - 68747/11 (https://dejure.org/2018,26560)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,26560) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

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

  • EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 39765/04

    SALE c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 68747/11
    Lastly, the Court observes that, as regards the preliminary procedure for the examination and admission of appeals on points of law by an organ operating within the Court of Cassation, it has previously acknowledged that an appellate court is not required to give more detailed reasoning when it simply applies a specific legal provision to dismiss an appeal on points of law as having no prospects of success, without further explanation (see Salé v. France, no. 39765/04, § 17, 21 March 2006, and Burg and Others v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, ECHR 2003-II).
  • EGMR, 16.11.2000 - 39442/98

    SOTIRIS ET NIKOS KOUTRAS ATTEE c. GRECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 68747/11
    The fact, however, that the applicants were able to bring their civil claim before a court does not in itself necessarily satisfy the requirements of Article 6 § 1. It must still be established that the degree of access afforded under the national legislation was sufficient to secure the individual's "right to a court", having regard to the rule of law in a democratic society (see Sotiris and Nikos Koutras ATTEE v. Greece, no. 39442/98, § 19, ECHR 2000-XII).
  • EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

    FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 68747/11
    Furthermore, a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (ibid.; see also Cordova v. Italy (no. 1), no. 40877/98, § 54, ECHR 2003-I; the recapitulation of the relevant principles in Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 65, Series A no. 294-B; and Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others, cited above, § 89).
  • EGMR, 06.04.2004 - 51515/99

    KRZAK v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 68747/11
    In this regard, the Court reiterates that the Convention does not guarantee the right to have criminal proceedings instituted against third persons or to have such persons convicted (see, among many other authorities, Perez v. France [GC], no. 7287/99, § 70, ECHR 2004 I, and Krzak v. Poland, no. 51515/99, § 24, 6 April 2004).
  • EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

    GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 68747/11
    The Court notes that the relevant principles with respect to the right of access to a court are set out in a long line of case-law starting with Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18, and finding recent expression in Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, § 120, ECHR 2016 and Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, §§ 84-90, ECHR 2016 (extracts).
  • EGMR, 28.01.2003 - 34763/02

    BURG et AUTRES contre la FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 68747/11
    Lastly, the Court observes that, as regards the preliminary procedure for the examination and admission of appeals on points of law by an organ operating within the Court of Cassation, it has previously acknowledged that an appellate court is not required to give more detailed reasoning when it simply applies a specific legal provision to dismiss an appeal on points of law as having no prospects of success, without further explanation (see Salé v. France, no. 39765/04, § 17, 21 March 2006, and Burg and Others v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, ECHR 2003-II).
  • EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

    STANEV c. BULGARIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 68747/11
    The Court reiterates, in particular, that the right of access to the courts is not absolute but may be subject to limitations; these are permitted by implication, since the right of access by its very nature calls for regulation by the State - regulation which may vary in time and in place according to the needs and resources of the community and of individuals (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 230, ECHR 2012).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht