Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SLIVKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2004 - 32872/03

  In principle, it does not suffice for an individual applicant to claim that the mere existence of a law violates his rights under the Convention; it is necessary that the law should have been applied to his detriment (see Klass and Others v. Germany, judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, pp. 17-18, § 33).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2004 - 32872/03

  These amendments therefore could not have interfered with the judicial determination of the applicant's dispute within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, e.g., the Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, pp. 81-82, §§ 47-50).
• EGMR, 07.06.2001 - 39594/98

  KRESS c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2004 - 32872/03

  It requires "a fair balance between the parties": each party must be given a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent (see, among other authorities, Ankerl v. Switzerland, no. 17748/91, § 38, ECHR 1996-V and Kress v. France [GC], no. 39594/98, § 72, ECHR 2001-VI).

• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 34931/08

  DOBRZYNSKA v. POLAND

  Moreover, the Court recalls that Article 34 of the Convention requires that an individual applicant should be able to claim to be actually affected by the measure of which he or she complains (Slivková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 32872/03, 14 December 2004; Ichin and others v. Ukraine (nos. 28189/04 and 28192/04), § 26, mutatis mutandis; 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 33078/06

  SIMKO v. SLOVAKIA

  In principle, it does not suffice for an individual applicant to claim that the mere existence of a law violates his or her rights under the Convention; it is necessary that the law should have been applied to his or her detriment (see, for example, Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 33, Series A no. 28, and Slivková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 32872/03, 14 December 2004).