Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LAZAREVIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  LAZAREVIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 25551/05

  KOROLEV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 29422/17

  The Court notes that the question of whether the applicant has suffered any significant disadvantage represents the main element of the criterion set forth in Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention (see Ionescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 36659/04, § 32, 1 June 2010, and Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 36659/04

  IONESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 29422/17

  The Court notes that the question of whether the applicant has suffered any significant disadvantage represents the main element of the criterion set forth in Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention (see Ionescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 36659/04, § 32, 1 June 2010, and Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR - 34179/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 29422/17

  The Court requires itemised bills and invoices that are sufficiently detailed to enable it to determine to what extent the above requirements have been met (Maktouf and Damjanovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 2312/08 and 34179/08, § 94, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.10.2015 - 35399/05

  KONSTANTIN STEFANOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 29422/17

  The Court has held that the absence of any significant disadvantage can be based on criteria such as the financial impact of the matter in dispute or the importance of the case for the applicant (see Konstantin Stefanov v. Bulgaria, no. 35399/05, § 44, 27 October 2015).

• EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 8701/21

  PINKAS AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  While it is true that the Constitutional Court did not elaborate as to why it decided to treat the submission by the applicants of the decision rendered in the case of the judges as a new complaint under Rule 22 § 3 of its Rules, rather than a legal and factual development relevant to the case under Rule 21 § 6 of its Rules, the applicants did not complain before this Court that the way in which the Constitutional Court had interpreted and applied its procedural rules in their case was in itself arbitrary (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, §§ 83-85, 11 July 2017, and Lazarevic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 29422/17, § 30, 14 January 2020).
• EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 54696/18

  DOMENECH FIGUEROA c. ESPAGNE

  Il est extrêmement rare que la Cour remette en cause sous l'angle de l'article 6 § 1 l'appréciation des tribunaux nationaux en estimant que leurs conclusions peuvent passer pour arbitraires ou manifestement déraisonnables (en ce sens, voir Dulaurans c. France, no 34553/97, § 38, 21 mars 2000 ; Khamidov c. Russie, no 72118/01, § 170, 15 novembre 2007 ; AnÄ‘elkovic c. Serbie, no 1401/08, § 24, 9 avril 2013 ; Lazarevic c. Bosnie-Herzégovine, no 29422/17, § 32, 14 janvier 2020 ; Bochan c. Ukraine (no 2) [GC], no 22251/08, §§ 63-65, CEDH 2015).