Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CANGI AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  CANGI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (21)

• EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 43572/18

  GRZEDA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 48173/18

  The dispute must be genuine and serious; it may relate not only to the actual existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise; and, finally, the result of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences not being sufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see, as a recent authority, Grzeda v. Poland [GC], no. 43572/18, § 257, 15 March 2022; and also, Balmer-Schafroth and Others, cited above, § 32; and Athanassoglou and Others, cited above, § 43, in the context of environment litigation).

  For Article 6 § 1 in its civil limb to be applicable, there must be a "dispute" concerning a "civil right" and the outcome of the proceedings in issue must be directly decisive for the right in question (see Grzeda v. Poland [GC], no. 43572/18, § 257, 15 March 2022).

• EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

  ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 48173/18

  "Article 6 § 1 does not guarantee any particular content for (civil) "rights and obligations' in the substantive law of the Contracting States: the Court may not create by way of interpretation of Article 6 § 1 a substantive right which has no legal basis in the State concerned (see, for example, Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 65, Series A no. 294-B, and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 119, ECHR 2005-X).
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 48173/18

  "In today's society the protection of the environment is an increasingly important consideration" (see Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 48, Series A no. 192).

 
• EGMR, 24.02.1995 - 16424/90

  McMICHAEL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 48173/18

  This requirement applies equally to non-binding advisory opinions intended to assist the court (see, for example, K.D.B. v. the Netherlands, cited above, § 43, and McMichael v. the United Kingdom, 24 February 1995, § 80, Series A no. 307-B), as well as information and opinions obtained by the court on its own initiative in order to reach an informed decision (see, for example, Zagrebacka banka d.d., § 201, and Juricic, § 74, both cited above).
• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 48173/18

  "Article 6 § 1 does not guarantee any particular content for (civil) "rights and obligations' in the substantive law of the Contracting States: the Court may not create by way of interpretation of Article 6 § 1 a substantive right which has no legal basis in the State concerned (see, for example, Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 65, Series A no. 294-B, and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 119, ECHR 2005-X).
• EGMR, 20.07.2001 - 30882/96

  PELLEGRINI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 48173/18

  What is particularly at stake is applicants' confidence in the workings of justice, which is based on, inter alia, the assumption that they are afforded the opportunity to express their views on every document in the case file (see Pellegrini v. Italy, no. 30882/96, § 45, ECHR 2001-VIII; Zagrebacka banka d.d. v. Croatia, no. 39544/05, § 203, 12 December 2013; and Juricic v. Croatia, no. 58222/09, § 75, 26 July 2011).
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 15346/89

  MASSON AND VAN ZON v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 48173/18

  The starting-point must be the provisions of the relevant domestic law and their interpretation by the domestic courts (see Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands, 28 September 1995, § 49, Series A no. 327-A, and Roche, cited above, § 120).
• EGMR, 03.03.2000 - 35376/97

  KRCMAR AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 48173/18

  This means that parties to proceedings must have the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the evidence before the court, as well as the opportunity to comment on its existence, content and authenticity in an appropriate form and within an appropriate time, if need be, in writing and in advance (see Krcmár and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 35376/97, § 42, 3 March 2000, and Colloredo Mannsfeld v. the Czech Republic, nos.
• EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 50772/11

  ERDINÇ KURT ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 48173/18

  The Court notes in this respect that the applicants did not argue before the Court that their questions could have been decisive for the outcome of the domestic proceedings or that they had concerned a key issue that was left unassessed by the domestic court (see, mutatis mutandis, Erdinç Kurt and Others v. Turkey, no. 50772/11, § 63, 6 June 2017).
• EGMR, 01.07.2021 - 56176/18

  ASSOCIATION BURESTOP 55 ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 48173/18

  The judgment in Association Burestop 55 and Others v. France (nos. 56176/18 and 5 others, §§ 53-60, 1 July 2021) confirmed this case-law.
• EGMR, 29.05.1986 - 8562/79

  FELDBRUGGE v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 7183/11

  LETINCIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 25680/05

  BURSA BAROSU BASKANLIGI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 24973/15

  CANGI c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 28621/15

  DEVINAR v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 34499/06

  PERIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 71665/01

  AUGUSTO c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 13.12.2022 - 77039/12

  TEST-ACHATS c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 19.09.2019 - 79441/17

  ANDERSENA v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 25053/05

  FERREIRA ALVES c. PORTUGAL (N° 3)
• EGMR, 09.12.2021 - 68437/13

  HAMZAGIC v. CROATIA

• EGMR - 35383/19 (anhängig)

  TATLi v. TÜRKIYE

  Did the administrative court proceedings involve the determination of "civil rights and obligations" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Cangi and Others v. Türkiye, no. 48173/18, §§ 34-38, 14 November 2023)?.