Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GAVRILOV v. UKRAINE

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GAVRILOV v. UKRAINE

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

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2017 - 11691/06

  According to its well-established case-law, it is not for this Court to deal with the alleged errors of law or fact committed by the national courts unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, among other authorities, García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I, and Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 61, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2017 - 11691/06

  The Court further reiterates that the "right to a court" is not absolute, but is subject to limitations permitted by implication, in particular where the conditions of admissibility of appeals are concerned (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 38, Series A no. 18, and Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, § 120, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2017 - 11691/06

  The Court further notes that the limitations applied to the right of access to a court 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 (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 60, Series A no. 33, and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 230, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2017 - 11691/06

  According to its well-established case-law, it is not for this Court to deal with the alleged errors of law or fact committed by the national courts unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, among other authorities, García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I, and Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 61, ECHR 2015).

• EGMR, 11.04.2024 - 61415/13

  BOYCHUK AND RASPRYAKHIN v. UKRAINE

  On the other hand, the risk of any mistake made by a State authority must be borne by the State, and errors must not be remedied at the expense of the individual concerned (see, among other authorities, Gavrilov v. Ukraine, no. 11691/06, §§ 23-25, 16 February 2017, with further references).
• EGMR, 07.11.2019 - 22289/08

  BEREZOVSKIYE v. UKRAINE

  Taking those factors into consideration, the Court concludes that by refusing to examine the cassation appeal, the Higher Administrative Court penalised the applicants for an error that was attributable not to them but to the judicial authorities, thus depriving the applicants of their right of access to a court (see, for comparison, Gavrilov v. Ukraine, no. 11691/06, § 25, 16 February 2017; Simecki, cited above, § 46; and Sotiris and Nikos Koutras ATTEE v. Greece, no. 39442/98, § 21, ECHR 2000-XII).