Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 31264/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2010,59942
EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 31264/04 (https://dejure.org/2010,59942)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.05.2010 - 31264/04 (https://dejure.org/2010,59942)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. Mai 2010 - 31264/04 (https://dejure.org/2010,59942)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,59942) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

  • EGMR, 28.11.2002 - 58442/00

    LAVENTS c. LETTONIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 31264/04
    "Law", within the meaning of Article 6 § 1, comprises in particular the legislation on the establishment and competence of judicial organs (see, inter alia, Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 114, 28 November 2002).

    It considers that it may not question their interpretation unless there has been a flagrant violation of domestic law (see, Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 114 in fine, 28 November 2002; Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 65, ECHR 2007-IX (extracts)).

  • EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 28953/03

    SULWINSKA v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 31264/04
    To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spólka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).
  • EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 24846/94

    ZIELINSKI ET PRADAL & GONZALEZ ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 31264/04
    The Court has already held that divergences in case-law are an inherent consequence of any judicial system which is based on a network of trial and appeal courts with authority over the area of their territorial jurisdiction, and that the role of a supreme court is precisely to resolve conflicts between decisions of the courts below (see Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and Others v. France [GC], nos. 24846/94 and 34165/96 to 34173/96, § 59, ECHR 1999-VII; Plechanow v. Poland, no. 22279/04, § 107, 7 July 2009).
  • EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 36455/02

    GUROV v. MOLDOVA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 31264/04
    In countries where the law is codified, organisation of the judicial system cannot be left to the discretion of the judicial authorities, although this does not mean that the courts do not have some latitude to interpret the relevant national legislation (see Coëme and Others v. Belgium, cited above, § 98, ECHR 2000-VII; Gurov v. Moldova, no. 36455/02, § 34, 11 July 2006).
  • EGMR, 04.03.2003 - 63486/00

    POSOKHOV c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 31264/04
    The phrase "established by law" covers not only the legal basis for the very existence of a "tribunal" but also the composition of the bench in each case (see Buscarini v. San Marino (dec.), no. 31657/96, 4 May 2000; Posokhov v. Russia, no. 63486/00, § 39, ECHR 2003-IV).
  • EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 22531/05

    BUGAJNY AND OTHERS v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 31264/04
    Having regard to the general principle according to which it is in the first place for the national courts themselves to interpret the provisions of domestic law, the Court reiterates that its jurisdiction to review the correctness of the judicial application of the domestic law is limited (see, Bugajny and Others v. Poland, no. 22531/05, §§ 65-66, 6 November 2007).
  • EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 74613/01

    Rechtssache J. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 31264/04
    It considers that it may not question their interpretation unless there has been a flagrant violation of domestic law (see, Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 114 in fine, 28 November 2002; Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 65, ECHR 2007-IX (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 31657/96

    BUSCARINI contre SAINT-MARIN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 31264/04
    The phrase "established by law" covers not only the legal basis for the very existence of a "tribunal" but also the composition of the bench in each case (see Buscarini v. San Marino (dec.), no. 31657/96, 4 May 2000; Posokhov v. Russia, no. 63486/00, § 39, ECHR 2003-IV).
  • EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96

    COEME AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 31264/04
    Accordingly, if a tribunal does not have jurisdiction to try a defendant in accordance with the provisions applicable under domestic law, it is not "established by law" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (compare Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, ECHR 2000-VII, §§ 99, 107-08).
  • EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 2815/05

    ANTONICELLI v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 31264/04
    The Court has established in a number of cases its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right of access to the Supreme Court in criminal proceedings (see Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, 19 May 2009; Kulikowski v. Poland, no. 18353/03, ECHR 2009-... (extracts)).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht