Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PONOMARENKO v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 33071/96

  MALHOUS c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 13156/02

  In such circumstances, the Court cannot reject this complaint for lack of temporal jurisdiction (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII, and Kerimov v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 151/03, 28 September 2006).
• EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 151/03

  KERIMOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 13156/02

  In such circumstances, the Court cannot reject this complaint for lack of temporal jurisdiction (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII, and Kerimov v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 151/03, 28 September 2006).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 23805/94

  BELLET c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 13156/02

  For this right to be effective, an individual must have a clear, practical opportunity to challenge an act that is an interference with his or her rights (see Bellet v. France, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 333-B, p. 42, § 36).

• EGMR, 11.04.2024 - 61415/13

  BOYCHUK AND RASPRYAKHIN v. UKRAINE

  That right of access is not absolute and it is subject to limitations, which, however, must not restrict or reduce a person's access in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18; Ponomarenko v. Ukraine, no. 13156/02, § 36, 14 June 2007; Matsyuk v. Ukraine, no. 1751/03, § 28, 10 December 2009; and Kuzmenko v. Ukraine, no. 49526/07, § 25, 9 March 2017).
• EGMR, 11.04.2024 - 32526/13

  GUSELNYKOV v. UKRAINE

  However, the right of access to a court is not absolute and may be subject to limitations that do not restrict or reduce the access left to an individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18; Ponomarenko v. Ukraine, no. 13156/02, § 36, 14 June 2007; Matsyuk v. Ukraine, no. 1751/03, § 28, 10 December 2009; and Kuzmenko v. Ukraine, no. 49526/07, § 25, 9 March 2017).
• EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 1751/03

  MATSYUK v. UKRAINE

  The relevant constitutional provisions, as well as references to the pertinent practice of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court, can be found in Ponomarenko v. Ukraine, no. 13156/02, §§ 15, 17 and 19, 14 June 2007.

  At the same time, in order for the right of access to a court to be effective, an individual must have a clear, practical opportunity to challenge an act that is an interference with his or her rights (see Ponomarenko v. Ukraine, no. 13156/02, § 36, 14 June 2007).