Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MUSCAT v. MALTA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) No violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (18)

• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 24197/10

  However, despite the absence of a similar clause for civil litigation, Article 6 § 1 may sometimes compel the State to provide for the assistance of a lawyer when such assistance proves indispensable to effective access to court, either because legal representation is rendered compulsory, as is done by the domestic law of certain Contracting States for various types of litigation, or by reason of the complexity of the procedure or of the case (see Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 26, Series A no. 32).
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 24197/10

  Given the independence of the legal profession from the State, the conduct of the case is essentially a matter between the defendant and his or her counsel, whether counsel be appointed under a legal-aid scheme or be privately financed, and, as such, cannot, other than in special circumstances, incur the State's liability under the Convention (see Artico v. Italy, 30 May 1980, Series A no. 37, § 36; Rutkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 45995/99, ECHR 2000-XI; and Cuscani v. the United Kingdom, no. 32771/96, § 39, 24 September 2002).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 24197/10

  The Court reiterates that a State cannot be considered responsible for every shortcoming of a lawyer (see Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 65, Series A no. 168).

 
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12129/86

  HENNINGS v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 24197/10

  It follows that the authorities cannot be reproached for refusing to reinstate the appeal given that the appellant failed to take the necessary steps to ensure receipt of the relevant notifications and decisions (see, mutatis mutandis, Hennings v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 26, Series A no. 251-A).
• EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 59519/00

  STAROSZCZYK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 24197/10

  In discharging its obligation to provide parties to civil proceedings with legal aid, when it is provided by domestic law, the State must display diligence so as to secure to those persons the genuine and effective enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under Article 6 (see, inter alia, Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, § 129, 22 March 2007; Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, § 106, 22 March 2007; and Bakowska v. Poland, no. 33539/02, § 46, 12 January 2010).
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 46800/99

  DEL SOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 24197/10

  There is no obligation under the Convention to make legal aid available for all disputes (contestations) in civil proceedings, as there is a clear distinction between the wording of Article 6 § 3 (c), which guarantees the right to free legal assistance on certain conditions in criminal proceedings, and of Article 6 § 1, which makes no reference to legal assistance (see Del Sol v. France, no. 46800/99, § 21, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 41400/98

  MONFORTE SANCHO, GARCIA MORENO, ROIG ESPERT, ROIG ESPERT ET ICARDO GARCIA contre …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 24197/10

  38366/97, 38688/97, 40777/98, 40843/98, 41015/98, 41400/98, 41446/98, 41484/98, 41787/98 and 41509/98, §§ 33 and 36, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 11.01.2001 - 38460/97

  PLATAKOU v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 24197/10

  Thus, in the Court's view, in the present case, the failure to serve the notification cannot be imputable to the bailiff who while acting as a State representative followed domestic practice to the letter in the exercise of his official duties (see, conversely, Platakou v. Greece, no. 38460/97, § 39, ECHR 2001-I, and Société Anonyme Thaleia Karydi Axte v. Greece, no. 44769/07, § 26, 5 November 2009).
• EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 47273/99

  BELES AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 24197/10

  In deciding, on the basis of a particularly strict construction of a procedural rule, not to examine the merits of a case, domestic courts may undermine the very essence of an applicant's right to a court, which is part of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Beles and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 47273/99, § 51, ECHR 2002-IX, and Perez de Rada Cavanilles, cited above, § 49).
• EGMR, 04.10.2001 - 47636/99

  TEUSCHLER contre l'ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 24197/10

  It is incumbent on the interested party to display special diligence in the defence of his interests (see Teuschler v. Germany (dec.), no. 47636/99, 4 October 2001, and Sukhorubchenko v. Russia, no. 69315/01, §§ 41-43, 10 February 2005).
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 45995/99

  RUTKOWSKI contre la POLOGNE
• EGMR, 24.09.2002 - 32771/96

  CUSCANI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 14.06.2017 - 44769/07

  SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME THALEIA KARYDI AXTE CONTRE LA GRÈCE
• EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 8932/05

  SIALKOWSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 8958/04

  SMYK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 33539/02

  BAKOWSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 10.02.2005 - 69315/01

  SUKHORUBCHENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.10.2002 - 68286/01

  NAKOV v.

• EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 797/14

  IVANOVA ET IVASHOVA c. RUSSIE

  La Cour considère dès lors que la requérante a entrepris toutes les démarches raisonnables pour obtenir le texte intégral de la décision et pour interjeter appel dans les délais impartis (voir, a contrario, Trukh c. Ukraine, no 50966/99, 14 octobre 2003, affaire dans laquelle le requérant n'a formulé aucune demande de copie intégrale de la décision, et Muscat c. Malte, no 24197/10, § 53, 17 juillet 2012, affaire dans laquelle le requérant n'a manifesté aucun intérêt pour le progrès de son recours pendant deux ans).
• EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 14796/11

  DEGUARA CARUANA GATTO AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  The Court reiterates that on deciding, on the basis of a particularly strict construction of a procedural rule, not to examine the merits of a case, domestic courts may undermine the very essence of an applicant's right to court, which is part of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Beles and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 47273/99, § 51, ECHR 2002-IX, and Muscat v. Malta, no. 24197/10, § 43, 17 July 2012).
• EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 37963/15

  MINTKEN AND AYDIN v. GERMANY

  Allerdings dürfen diese Einschränkungen den Zugang einer Person nicht dergestalt oder soweit einschränken oder verringern, dass das Recht in seinem Kerngehalt beeinträchtigt wird, und sie sind nicht mit Artikel 6 Abs. 1 vereinbar, wenn mit ihnen kein legitimes Ziel verfolgt wird oder wenn die eingesetzten Mittel zum angestrebten Ziel nicht in einem angemessenen Verhältnis stehen (siehe Muscat./. Malta, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 24197/10, Rdnrn. 42, 44, 17. Juli 2012, mit weiteren Verweisen).

 
• EGMR, 27.10.2015 - 66048/09

  KONI v. CYPRUS

  In discharging its obligation to provide parties to civil proceedings with legal aid, when it is provided by domestic law, the State must display diligence so as to secure to those persons the genuine and effective enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under Article 6 (see Muscat v. Malta, no. 24197/10, § 46, 17 July 2012, with further references therein).
• EGMR, 16.02.2017 - 18986/06

  KARAKUTSYA v. UKRAINE

  The Court's role is, however, to ascertain whether the effects of such an interpretation are compatible with the Convention (see Muscat v. Malta, no. 24197/10, § 43, 17 July 2012 with further references).
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 18656/13

  VIKTOR NAZARENKO v. UKRAINE

  It is true that it was also the applicant's duty to display special diligence in the defence of his interests and to take the necessary steps to apprise himself of the developments in the proceedings (see, for example, Teuschler v. Germany (dec.), no. 47636/99, 4 October 2001; Sukhorubchenko v. Russia, no. 69315/01, § 48, 10 February 2005; Gurzhyy v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 326/03, 1 April 2008; and Muscat v. Malta, no. 24197/10, § 44, 17 July 2012).
• EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 35640/08

  ARCHEBASOV v. UKRAINE

  The Court's role is, however, to ascertain whether the effects of such an interpretation are compatible with the Convention (see Muscat v. Malta, no. 24197/10, § 43, 17 July 2012, with further references).