Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 16480/02 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,61216) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
RUPAR v. SLOVENIA
Art. 6, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 16480/02
In this way it embodies the "right to a court", of which the right of access, that is the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters, constitutes one aspect (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, §§ 35-36, Series A no. 18). - EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81
POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 16480/02
This right extends only to disputes ("contestations") over "civil rights and obligations" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law (see, among other authorities, Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 36, Series A no. 172). - EGMR, 25.11.1994 - 12884/87
ORTENBERG c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 16480/02
In this connection it observes that in the case Ortenberg v. Austria (25 November 1994, § 28, Series A no. 295-B) the Court recognised that proceedings for granting a building permit to a particular person could also involve consideration of the civil rights of the neighbour opposing the building permit.
- EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 65389/09
VAN ANRAAT v. THE NETHERLANDS
Furthermore, it is the domestic courts which are best placed to assess the credibility and the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, among many other authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 33, Series A no. 235-B; Vernon v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 38753/97, ECHR 1999-VI; Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX; and recently, Shalimov v. Ukraine, no. 20808/02, § 67, 4 March 2010, and Rupar v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 16480/02, 18 May 2010). - EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 3524/10
ARCHIDIOCÈSE CATHOLIQUE DE BUCAREST c. ROUMANIE
En effet, l'annulation du permis de construire ne conduit pas de manière automatique à la démolition du bâtiment objet du permis en discussion (voir, mutatis mutandis, Rupar c. Slovénie (déc.), no 16480/02, § 41, 18 mai 2010).