Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  XENODOCHIAKI S.A. v. GREECE

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 49213/99

  This rule must be applied "with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism"; it is sufficient that the complaints intended to be made subsequently before the Court should have been raised, "at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law" before the national authorities (Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 37, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 24846/94

  ZIELINSKI ET PRADAL & GONZALEZ ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 49213/99

  The Court recalls that the principle of the rule of law and the notion of fair trial enshrined in Article 6 preclude any interference by the legislature - other than on compelling grounds of the general interest - with the administration of justice designed to influence the judicial determination of a dispute (see, among other authorities, Zielinski and Pradal & Gonzalez Others v. France [GC], nos. 24846/94 and 34165/96 to 34173/96, § 57, ECHR 1999-VII).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 49213/99

  The Court is only competent to examine whether the State infringed the applicant company's rights under Article 6 § 1 by intervening in a manner which was decisive to ensure that the outcome of the proceedings to which it was a party was favourable to it (see the Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, p. 82, § 52).

 
• EGMR, 28.10.1987 - 8695/79

  Inze ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 49213/99

  Although the application of Article 14 does not presuppose a breach of one or more of such provisions - and to this extent it is autonomous -, there can be no room for its application unless the facts of the case fall within the ambit of one or more of the latter (see, among many other authorities, the Inze v. Austria judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, p. 17, § 36).
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

  PRESSOS COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 49213/99

  Nor could the applicant company rely on a "legitimate expectation" that its claims would be granted (see, a contrario, Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and others v. Belgium judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, § 31), since the legal basis of these claims, namely the lease agreement, had been terminated on 18 March 1988.
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 12868/87

  SPADEA ET SCALABRINO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 49213/99

  It has therefore to be established, inter alia, that the situation of the alleged victim can be considered similar to that of persons who have been better treated (see the Spadea and Scalabrino v. Italy judgment of 28 September 1995, Series A no. 315-B, p. 28, § 45).