Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AHAC AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

  Partly struck out of the list;Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  AHAC AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2021 - 80531/12

  Normally, issues such as the weight attached by the national courts to given items of evidence or to findings or assessments in issue before them for consideration are not for the Court to review (see, among many other authorities, Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 61, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

  MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2021 - 80531/12

  It reiterates that the power to review an impugned measure's compliance with national law is limited, and its task is not to take the place of the domestic authorities in making such an assessment (see Malone v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, § 79; see also, as regards the wide margin of appreciation in cases such as the present one, Olczak v. Poland (dec.), no. 30417/96, § 85, ECHR 2002 X (extracts), and Capital Bank AD, cited above, § 136).
• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2021 - 80531/12

  The Court's task is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, including the way in which evidence was permitted, were "fair" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (see Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 21, Series A no. 274).

• EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 16472/20

  KODRIC v. SLOVENIA

  As regards the applicant's argument that during such fresh examination his constitutional complaint should have been decided by a reasoned decision on the merits in order to eliminate any doubt about fairness of the proceedings, the Court refers to its established case-law to the effect that for the national superior courts - such as the Constitutional Court - it suffices, when declining to admit a complaint, to simply refer to the legal provisions governing that procedure if the questions raised by the complaint - as in the present case -are not of fundamental importance (see, among many authorities, Suhadolc v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 57655/08, 17 May 2011, and, regarding the same grounds for the dismissal of the constitutional complaint as in the present case, Ahac and Others v. Slovenia (dec.) [Committee], no. 80531/12, 16 March 2021).