Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KAMENOVA v. BULGARIA

  No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KAMENOVA c. BULGARIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2018 - 62784/09

  Article 6 § 1 embodies the "right to a court", of which the right of access, that is the right to institute proceedings before a court in civil matters, constitutes one aspect (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18).

  Article 6 § 1 of the Convention embodies the "right to a court", of which the right of access, that is the right to institute proceedings before a court in civil matters, constitutes one aspect (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18).

• EGMR, 01.03.2002 - 48778/99

  KUTIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2018 - 62784/09

  The right of access to a court also includes the right to obtain a determination of the dispute by a court (see Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 25, ECHR 2002-II).

  The right of access to a court also includes the right to obtain a determination of the dispute by a court (see Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 25, ECHR 2002-II).

• EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 40877/98

  CORDOVA c. ITALIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2018 - 62784/09

  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 (see Sabeh El Leil v. France [GC], no. 34869/05, § 47, 29 June 2011, and Cordova v. Italy, no. 40877/98, § 54, ECHR 2003-I).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2018 - 62784/09

  The Court will also examine the effectiveness of access to court, which presupposes that an individual has a clear and concrete possibility of challenging an act constituting an interference with his or her rights (see Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others, cited above, § 86) and whether 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 Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 57, Series A no. 93).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 44252/10

  BANICEVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2018 - 62784/09

  This applies in particular to the interpretation by courts of rules of a procedural nature (see Banicevic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 44252/10, § 30, 2 October 2012).

• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 42180/19

  JAKUTAVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  However, it considers that the core of the applicant's complaint concerned a pecuniary claim, which is "civil" in nature (see Leuska and Others v. Estonia, no. 64734/11, § 51, 7 November 2017, and Kamenova v. Bulgaria, no. 62784/09, § 41, 12 July 2018).

  These two cases are Leuska and Others v. Estonia (no. 64734/11, 7 November 2017) and Kamenova v. Bulgaria (no. 62784/09, 12 July 2018).

• EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 3948/14

  HARUTYUNYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court notes that the rules governing the time-limits for lodging an appeal are aimed at ensuring a proper administration of justice and compliance, in particular, with the principle of legal certainty (Kamenova v. Bulgaria, no. 62784/09, § 47, 12 July 2018).
• EGMR, 12.07.2018 - 22008/12

  ALLÈGRE c. FRANCE

  Pour un arrêt récent fondé sur une approche similaire liée au risque prétendument assumé par le requérant voir Kamenova c. Bulgarie, n° 62784/09, §§ 49, 52 et 54.
• EGMR, 21.09.2021 - 66107/12

  PISSENS ET EUROMETAAL N.V. c. BELGIQUEu000a

  Du reste, les requérants n'ont pas fait valoir que la loi et son interprétation par les juridictions internes étaient imprévisibles, et la Cour ne décèle aucun élément pouvant attester que tel était le cas, eu égard au caractère bien établi de la jurisprudence interne quant au point de départ du délai de prescription en cette matière (paragraphe 29 ci-dessus ; voir et comparer, Melnyk c. Ukraine, no 23436/03, § 29, 28 mars 2006, Kamenova c. Bulgarie, no 62784/09, §§ 48-49, 12 juillet 2018, Kur?Ÿun c. Turquie, no 22677/10, § 98, 30 octobre 2018, et Gros c. Slovénie, no 45315/18, § 29, 7 juillet 2020).