Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PETROVIC AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO

  No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PETROVIC AND KUZMANOVIC v. MONTENEGRO

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

  VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 18116/15

  In particular, the Court reiterates that Article 6 obliges the courts to give reasons for their judgments but cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, § 61, Series A no. 288).

  According to the Court's established case-law, it is well known that Article 6 obliges the courts to give reasons for their judgments, but it cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument, nor is the European Court called upon to examine whether arguments are adequately met (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, § 61, 19 April 1994, Series A no. 288).

• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 18064/91

  HIRO BALANI v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 18116/15

  If, however, a submission would, if accepted, be decisive for the outcome of the case, it may require a specific and express reply by the court in its judgment (see Hiro Balani v. Spain, 9 December 1994, §§ 27-28, Series A no. 303-B, and Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, §§ 29-30, Series A no. 303-A).

  If, however, a submission would, if accepted, be decisive for the outcome of the case, as has been the applicants" situation in the present case, it may require a specific and express reply by the court in its judgment (see Hiro Balani v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 27, Series A no. 303-B, and Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 29, Series A no. 303-A).

• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 18116/15

  Other criteria which may be taken into consideration by the Court include the fact that the domestic courts examined the merits of the applicant's request (see Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 41, ECHR 2007-II).

• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 59433/18

  EGMR zu den Rechten von Beamten: Lehrer dürften nicht streiken

  La Cour considère donc que la haute juridiction a suffisamment traité la question des obligations internationales de l'Allemagne, découlant du droit international du travail notamment, concernant l'existence éventuelle d'un droit de grève, et qu'elle a motivé de manière précise et explicite son rejet de la thèse des requérants selon laquelle ils jouissaient du droit de grève (Petrovic et autres c. Monténégro, no 18116/15, §§ 41 et 43, 17 juillet 2018).
• EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 38851/10

  DEMIR c. TURQUIE

  En effet, dès lors que le tribunal avait établi que les terrains en cause avaient un caractère forestier, il ne pouvait les faire inscrire au registre comme propriété des requérants étant donné que ce type de terrain ne pouvait faire l'objet d'une propriété privée, même lorsqu'il faisait l'objet d'un titre de propriété immatriculé, comme le prétendaient les requérants (voir Petrovic et autres c. Monténégro, no 18116/15, §§ 41 à 43, 17 juillet 2018).
• EGMR, 15.07.2021 - 23819/11

  ARCELORMITTAL AMBALAJ CELIGI SANAYI VE TICARET ANONIM SIRKETI v. UKRAINE

  If, however, a submission would, if accepted, be decisive for the outcome of the case, it may require a specific and express reply by the court in its judgment (see, for instance, Petrovic and Others v. Montenegro, no. 18116/15, § 41, 17 July 2018).
• EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 11161/08

  MONT BLANC TRADING LTD AND ANTARES TITANIUM TRADING LTD v. UKRAINE

  If, however, a submission would, if accepted, be decisive for the outcome of the case, it may require a specific and express reply by the court in its judgment (see, for instance, Petrovic and Others v. Montenegro, no. 18116/15, § 41, 17 July 2018).
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 31885/10

  KÖKSOY v. TURKEY

  If, however, a submission would, if accepted, be decisive for the outcome of the case, it may require a specific and express reply by the court in its judgment (see Petrovic and Others v. Montenegro, no. 18116/15, § 41 17 July 2018 with further references).