Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GAKHARIA v. GEORGIA

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GAKHARIA v. GEORGIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 30459/13
• EGMR, 17.06.2020 - 30459/13

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• BVerfG, 05.04.2005 - 1 BvR 1664/04

  Erfolgreiche Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen Sorgerechtsentscheidung des OLG Naumburg …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 30459/13

  It is interesting to note in this respect that the German Federal Constitutional Court stated as follows in its order of 5 April 2005, 1 BvR 1664/04, concerning a constitutional complaint against a custody decision of the Naumburg Higher Regional Court in the case of Görgülü:.
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 71099/01

  MONORY v. ROMANIA AND HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 30459/13

  The Court notes that in the particular circumstances of the current case, where the interests of a child were at stake, the domestic courts were required to act with a certain speediness (see Monory v. Romania and Hungary, no. 71099/01, § 92, 5 April 2005, and, mutatis mutandis, M. and M. v. Croatia, no. 10161/13, § 179, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12952/87

  RUIZ-MATEOS c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 30459/13

  However, the general concept of a fair trial, encompassing the fundamental principle that proceedings should be adversarial (see Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain, 23 June 1993, § 63, Series A no. 262), requires that all parties to civil proceedings should have the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed or evidence adduced with a view to influencing the court's decision (see Lobo Machado v. Portugal, 20 February 1996, § 31, Reports 1996-I).

 
• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 30459/13

  It further emphasises that it is for the national authorities to ensure that the requirements of a "fair hearing" are met in each individual case (see Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274).
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 30459/13

  However, such a waiver must be established in an unequivocal manner, must be attended by the minimum safeguards commensurate with its importance (see Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 31, Series A no. 277-A), and must not run counter to any important public interest (see Sejdovic, § 86, and Dilipak and Karakaya, § 79, both cited above; see also Natsvlishvili and Togonidze v. Georgia, no. 9043/05, § 91, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

  PADOVANI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 30459/13

  Finally, the Court reiterates that its task is not to review the relevant law and practice in abstracto, but to determine whether or not the manner in which they were applied to, or affected the applicant, gave rise to a violation of the Convention (see, Padovani v. Italy, 26 February 1993, § 24, Series A no. 257-B).
• EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 9043/05

  NATSVLISHVILI AND TOGONIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 30459/13

  However, such a waiver must be established in an unequivocal manner, must be attended by the minimum safeguards commensurate with its importance (see Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 31, Series A no. 277-A), and must not run counter to any important public interest (see Sejdovic, § 86, and Dilipak and Karakaya, § 79, both cited above; see also Natsvlishvili and Togonidze v. Georgia, no. 9043/05, § 91, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 71555/01

  EINHORN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 30459/13

  Hence, in that case it relied on the Court's case-law according to which a denial of justice is found when a person convicted in absentia is subsequently unable to obtain a fresh determination on the merits of the charge in circumstances where it was not established that he had waived his right to appear and to defend himself (see, mutatis mutandis, Colozza v. Italy, 12 February 1985, § 29, Series A no. 89; Einhorn v. France (dec.), no. 71555/01, § 33, ECHR 2001-XI; Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 85, ECHR 2001-II; and Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 82, ECHR 2006-II), or that he had intended to escape trial (see Medenica v. Switzerland, no. 20491/92, § 55, ECHR 2001-VI).
• EGMR, 14.06.2001 - 20491/92

  MEDENICA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 30459/13

  Hence, in that case it relied on the Court's case-law according to which a denial of justice is found when a person convicted in absentia is subsequently unable to obtain a fresh determination on the merits of the charge in circumstances where it was not established that he had waived his right to appear and to defend himself (see, mutatis mutandis, Colozza v. Italy, 12 February 1985, § 29, Series A no. 89; Einhorn v. France (dec.), no. 71555/01, § 33, ECHR 2001-XI; Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 85, ECHR 2001-II; and Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 82, ECHR 2006-II), or that he had intended to escape trial (see Medenica v. Switzerland, no. 20491/92, § 55, ECHR 2001-VI).
• EGMR, 07.06.2001 - 39594/98

  KRESS c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 30459/13

  The Court reiterates that the principle of equality of arms, which is one of the elements of the broader concept of a fair hearing, requires each party to be given a reasonable opportunity to present its case under conditions that do not place it at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis its opponent (see, among many other authorities, Nideröst-Huber v. Switzerland, 18 February 1997, § 23, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I; Kress v. France [GC], no. 39594/98, § 72, ECHR 2001-VI; Yvon v. France, no. 44962/98, § 31, ECHR 2003-V; and Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, no. 62543/00, § 56, ECHR 2004-III).
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 29731/96

  Dieter Krombach

• EGMR - 42875/13 (anhängig)

  GJANCI v. ALBANIA

  Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings, as well as the right to be present at the hearing, respected as regards the examination of the case by the Supreme Court without the applicant's participation? Was the applicant's right of access to court breached, on account of his inability to challenge the decision taken in his absence (see for example Gakharia v. Georgia, no. 30459/13, § 44, 17 January 2017)?.