Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NAÏT-LIMAN v. SWITZERLAND

  No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NAÏT-LIMAN c. SUISSE

  Non-violation de l'article 6 - Droit à un procès équitable (Article 6 - Procédure civile;Article 6-1 - Accès à un tribunal) (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NAÏT-LIMAN v. SWITZERLAND - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Besprechungen u.ä.

• verfassungsblog.de (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

  Zugang zum Gericht für Folteropfer: Scheut Straßburg die Konsequenzen?

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 51357/07
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 51357/07

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (29)

• EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 35763/97

  AL-ADSANI c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 51357/07

  Referring to the judgment delivered by the Court in the case of Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 35763/97, ECHR 2001-XI), it further considered that there had been no violation of the applicant's right of access to a court.

  According to the Court's case-law, the prohibition of torture has achieved the status of a peremptory norm in international law (see Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 61, ECHR 2001-XI).

  The present case must be distinguished from Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom, [GC] no. 35763/97, ECHR 2001-XI, where the torture was allegedly carried out by the Kuwaiti authorities and the Court in that case decided that "[i]n these circumstances the application of the provisions of the [State Immunity] 1978 Act to uphold Kuwait's claim to immunity cannot be said to have amounted to an unjustified restriction on the applicant's access to a court".[68] By contrast, in the present case the Swiss Federal Supreme Court held that it was not necessary to examine the issue of immunity from jurisdiction, in that it was dismissing the appeal on the grounds that there did not exist a sufficient connection between the facts of the case and Switzerland.

• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01

  Budweiser-Streit

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 51357/07

  It follows that the Court cannot call into question the findings of the domestic authorities on alleged errors of domestic law unless they are arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see, to this effect, Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, §§ 85-86, ECHR 2007-I).

  v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, §§ 85-86, ECHR 2007-1; Van Kück v. Germany, no. 35968/97, § 57, ECHR 2003-VII; and Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, § 42 of my concurring opinion, ECHR 2017 (extracts).

• EGMR, 23.10.1985 - 8848/80

  BENTHEM v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 51357/07

  The fact that the respondent State does not actually contest the existence of a right of victims of torture to obtain compensation, but rather its extra-territorial application, is immaterial, given that the dispute may relate not only to the actual existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise (see Benthem v. the Netherlands, 23 October 1985, § 32, Series A no. 97).

  "The fact that the respondent State does not actually contest the existence of a right of victims of torture to obtain compensation, but rather its extra-territorial application, is immaterial, given that the dispute may relate not only to the actual existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise (see Benthem v. the Netherlands, 23 October 1985, § 32, Series A no. 97).".

 
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 51357/07

  All of those elements make up the right to a fair trial secured by Article 6 § 1 (see Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, § 120, ECHR 2016, and Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18).

  As decided in Golder v. the United Kingdom (21 February 1975, § 38, Series A no. 18), the right of access to a court is an implied right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and there must be implied limitations to it, regulated by the State.[4] In Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom (28 May 1985, § 57, Series A no. 93), the Court, in assessing the right of access to a court, held that "... the limitations applied must not restrict or reduce the access left to the individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired..." It also held that "...a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6 para.

• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 34356/06

  Immunität gilt auch bei Folter

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 51357/07

  That case subsequently came before this Court, which held that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Jones and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 34356/06 and 40525/06, ECHR 2014).

  of the Code of Obligations... The restricted interpretation given by the Federal Court to the concept of the forum of necessity does not represent an obstacle to the application of Article 6 § 1 to the present case (see, mutatis mutandis, Al-Adsani, cited above, §§ 46-49, and Jones and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 34356/06 and 40525/06, 14 January 2014, § 164).

• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 51357/07

  As was noted in Marckx v. Belgium (13 June 1979, § 42, Series A no. 31), which also supports what is maintained with regard to the issue of arbitrariness, "[i]t is for the respondent State, and the respondent State alone, to take the measures it considers appropriate to ensure that its domestic law is coherent and consistent".[41] However, this principle was not followed by the Swiss courts as regards the interpretation and application of section 3 of the LDIP, probably because the principle of effectiveness was overlooked.
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 51357/07

  As decided in Golder v. the United Kingdom (21 February 1975, § 38, Series A no. 18), the right of access to a court is an implied right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and there must be implied limitations to it, regulated by the State.[4] In Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom (28 May 1985, § 57, Series A no. 93), the Court, in assessing the right of access to a court, held that "... the limitations applied must not restrict or reduce the access left to the individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired..." It also held that "...a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6 para.
• EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 25748/15

  HAMESEVIC v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 51357/07

  See, inter alia, Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 61, ECHR 2015; Hamesevic v. Denmark (dec.), no. 25748/15, § 43, 16 May 2017; Alam v. Denmark (dec.), no. 33809/15, § 35, 6 June 2017; Dulaurans v. France, no. 34553/97, §§ 33-34 and 38, 21 March 2000; Khamidov v. Russia, no. 72118/01, § 170, 15 November 2007; AnÄ‘elkovic v. Serbia, no. 1401/08, § 24, 9 April 2013); Anheuser-Buch Inc.
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 51357/07

  See, inter alia, Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 61, ECHR 2015; Hamesevic v. Denmark (dec.), no. 25748/15, § 43, 16 May 2017; Alam v. Denmark (dec.), no. 33809/15, § 35, 6 June 2017; Dulaurans v. France, no. 34553/97, §§ 33-34 and 38, 21 March 2000; Khamidov v. Russia, no. 72118/01, § 170, 15 November 2007; AnÄ‘elkovic v. Serbia, no. 1401/08, § 24, 9 April 2013); Anheuser-Buch Inc.
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 51357/07

  On the contrary, it has recognised that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism (see Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

  KRUSLIN c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5095/71

  KJELDSEN, BUSK MADSEN AND PEDERSEN v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18030/11

  MAGYAR HELSINKI BIZOTTSÁG v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring
• EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 33809/15

  ALAM v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 43903/09

  YABANSU ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 45036/98

  Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi ./. Irland
• EGMR, 27.08.2015 - 46470/11

  PARRILLO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 12.06.2003 - 35968/97

  Rechtssache V. K. gegen DEUTSCHLAND
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 12.12.2001 - 52207/99

  V. und B. B., Ž. S., M. S., D. J. und D. S. gegen Belgien, Dänemark, …
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

  LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE
• EGMR - 41072/11 (anhängig)

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 47273/99

  BELES AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)