Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 36500/05   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2009,69417
EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 36500/05 (https://dejure.org/2009,69417)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13.10.2009 - 36500/05 (https://dejure.org/2009,69417)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13. Januar 2009 - 36500/05 (https://dejure.org/2009,69417)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,69417) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (11)

  • EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

    STANEV c. BULGARIE

    This "right to a court", of which the right of access is an aspect, may be relied on by anyone who considers on arguable grounds that an interference with the exercise of his or her civil rights is unlawful and complains that no possibility was afforded to submit that claim to a court meeting the requirements of Article 6 § 1 (see, inter alia, Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 117, ECHR 2005-X, and Salontaji-Drobnjak v. Serbia, no. 36500/05, § 132, 13 October 2009).

    In its earlier case-law the Court has expressed the view that an individual's legal capacity is decisive for the exercise of all the rights and freedoms, not least in relation to any restrictions that may be placed on the person's liberty (see Shtukaturov v.Russia, no. 44009/05, § 71, 27 March 2008; Salontaji-Drobniak v. Serbia, no. 36500/05, §§ 140 et seq.; and the recent judgment in X and Y v. Croatia, no. 5193/09, §§ 102-104).

  • EGMR - 56578/11 (anhängig)

    AYDiNDAG KESKIN c. TURQUIE

    la possibilité pour une personne privée de sa capacité juridique de pouvoir efficacement contester les rapports d'expertise le concernant (par exemple, Salontaji-Drobnjak c. Serbie, no 36500/05, §§ 124-128 et 132-135, 13 octobre 2009 - au regard du principe du contradictoire, dans ce contexte, voir par exemple, Mantovanelli c. France, 18 mars 1997, §§ 30 à 36, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1997 II) ;.

    de la jurisprudence de la Cour en matière de l'article 8 de la Convention relative au placement d'une personne sous tutelle et les questions annexes à pareilles mesures (voir parmi beaucoup d'autres, A.G. c. Suisse (déc.), no 28605/05, du 9 avril 1997, K. et T. c. Finlande [GC], no 25702/94, §§ 164-170, CEDH 2001-VII, Chtoukatourov c. Russie, précité, §§ 90-96, Salontaji-Drobnjak c. Serbie, no 36500/05, §§ 140-145, 13 octobre 2009, et Berková c. Slovaquie, no 67149/01, §§ 172-176, 24 mars 2009) ;.

  • EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 41694/07

    ISAKOVIC VIDOVIC v. SERBIA

    The Court may, however, also have regard to the facts prior to the ratification inasmuch as they could be considered to have created a continuous situation extending beyond that date or may be relevant for the understanding of facts occurring thereafter (see, Salontaji-Drobnjak v. Serbia, no. 36500/05, § 110, 13 October 2009; see also, mutatis mutandis, Zorica Jovanovic v. Serbia, no. 21794/08, § 49, ECHR 2013; Silih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, § 159, 9 April 2009; and P.M. v. Bulgaria, no. 49669/07, §§ 56-58, 24 January 2012).
  • EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 45026/07

    KĘDZIOR v. POLAND

    This "right to court", of which the right of access is an aspect, may be relied on by anyone who considers on arguable grounds that an interference with the exercise of his or her civil rights is unlawful and complains that no possibility has been afforded to submit that claim to a court meeting the requirements of Article 6 § 1 (see, inter alia, Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 117, ECHR 2005-X, and Salontaji--Drobnjak v. Serbia, no. 36500/05, § 132, 13 October 2009).
  • EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 32299/08

    JOVANOVIC v. SERBIA

    It shall nevertheless, for reasons of context and whilst examining the applicant's complaint as a whole, also take into account any and all relevant events prior to that date (see, mutatis mutandis, Salontaji-Drobnjak v. Serbia, no. 36500/05, § 110, 13 October 2009).
  • EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 23419/07

    SÝKORA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

    As to the way in which the applicant was represented in the legal capacity proceedings, the Court is of the opinion that given what was at stake for him proper legal representation, including contact between the representative and the applicant, was necessary or even crucial in order to ensure that the proceedings would be really adversarial and the applicant's legitimate interests protected (see D.D. v. Lithuania, cited above, § 122; Salontaji-Drobnjak v. Serbia, no. 36500/05, §§ 127 and 144, 13 October 2009; and Beiere v. Latvia, no. 30954/05, § 52, 29 November 2011).
  • EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 2611/07

    DOBRIC v. SERBIA

    It shall nevertheless, for reasons of context, also take into account any and all relevant events prior to that date (see, mutatis mutandis, Salontaji-Drobnjak v. Serbia, no. 36500/05, § 110, 13 October 2009).
  • EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 55949/13

    HERACLES S.A. GENERAL CEMENT COMPANY c. GRÈCE

    Ce «droit à un tribunal», dont le droit d'accès ne constitue qu'un aspect, est garanti à toute personne qui considère de manière défendable que l'ingérence dans l'exercice de ses droits civils est arbitraire et prétend qu'elle n'a pas eu de possibilité de se plaindre de ce grief auprès d'un tribunal présentant les garanties de l'article 6 § 1 (voir, notamment, Roche c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 32555/96, § 117, CEDH 2005-X, et Salontaji-Drobnjak c. Serbie, no 36500/05, § 132, 13 octobre 2009).
  • EGMR, 02.05.2013 - 25498/08

    KRISTIANSEN AND TYVIK AS v. NORWAY

    This "right to a court", of which the right of access is an aspect, may be relied on by anyone who considers on arguable grounds that an interference with the exercise of his or her civil rights is unlawful and complains that no possibility was afforded to submit that claim to a court meeting the requirements of Article 6 § 1 (see, inter alia, Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 117, ECHR 2005-X, and Salontaji-Drobnjak v. Serbia, no. 36500/05, § 132, 13 October 2009).
  • EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 33117/02

    LASHIN v. RUSSIA

    In Russia at the time the law neither provided for an automatic review nor for a direct access to the court for an incapacitated person, so the latter was fully dependant on his guardian in this respect (see, mutatis mutandis, Salontaji-Drobnjak v. Serbia, no. 36500/05, § 134, 13 October 2009).
  • EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 49069/11

    NATALIYA MIKHAYLENKO v. UKRAINE

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht