Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2019,20496
EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17 (https://dejure.org/2019,20496)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.07.2019 - 16812/17 (https://dejure.org/2019,20496)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. Juli 2019 - 16812/17 (https://dejure.org/2019,20496)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2019,20496) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    RUSTAVI 2 BROADCASTING COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

    Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial ...

Sonstiges

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

    RUSTAVI 2 BROADCASTING COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 18, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
    [ENG]

 
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 ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (29)

  • EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

    BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17
    At the outset, and in reply to the second to fourth applicants" arguments, the Court reiterates that it is not its role to ascertain whether or not the rules of substantive or procedural law were correctly followed by the domestic courts in the course of the examination of the ownership dispute (see, for instance, Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 61, 5 February 2015).

    According to the thinking underlying the notion of "a manifest error of assessment" (une erreur manifeste d"appréciation - a concept of French administrative law), as used in the context of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, if the error of law or fact by the national court is so blatantly evident that, from the standpoint of an objective observer, no reasonable court could ever have made it, this manifest error may disturb the fairness of the proceedings (compare, for instance, Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, §§ 61-62, ECHR 2015, and the other authorities cited therein).

  • EGMR, 19.05.2004 - 70276/01

    Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (hinreichender Verdacht nach Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit.

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17
    All in all, having regard to the fact that not even an arguable issue under the cited substantive provision of the Convention - Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - can be said to exist in the particular circumstances of the present case, Article 18 of the Convention cannot possibly be relied on alone (see Merabishvili, cited above, § 287; OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos, cited above, §§ 663 and 664; and Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, § 73, ECHR 2004-IV).
  • EGMR, 04.05.1999 - 41974/98

    KUCHERENKO contre l'UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17
    However, an applicant is not obliged to have recourse to remedies that are inadequate or ineffective (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 67, Reports 1996-IV), and the pursuit of such remedies will unavoidably have consequences for the identification of the "final decision" and, correspondingly, for the calculation of the starting point for the running of the six-month rule (compare, for example, Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002, and Kucherenko v. Unkraine (dec.), no. 41974/98, 4 May 1999).
  • EGMR, 03.02.2004 - 7274/02

    ESKELINEN v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17
    268 and 275; Tormala v. Finland (dec.), no. 41258/98, 16 March 2004; Eskelinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 7274/02, 3 February 2004; Kranz v. Poland (dec.), no. 6214/02, 10 September 2002; and Skowronski v. Poland (dec.), no. 52595/99, 28 June 2001).
  • EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 69582/01

    SARDINE c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17
    In the light of the above-mentioned case-law principles, the Court considers that the second to fourth applicants" complaints about the outcome of the ownership dispute do not raise a prima facie issue under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Indeed, this provision cannot be construed as a guarantee that the desired outcome will be obtained in civil litigation (see, for instance, Burdiashvili and Others v. Georgia (dec.), no. 26290/12, § 36, 4 April 2017; see, mutatis mutandis, Slivenko and Others v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 121, ECHR 2002-II (extracts); and see Sardin v. Russia (dec.), no. 69582/01, ECHR 2004-II).
  • EGMR, 18.12.2003 - 63000/00

    SKONDRIANOS c. GRECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17
    63000/00 and 2 others, §§ 29-30, 18 December 2003).
  • EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

    RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17
    A member of the tribunal must be independent of both the executive and also of the parties (see, for instance, Ringeisen v. Austria, judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 39, § 95, and Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 24, § 55).
  • EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

    HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17
    Reiterating that a tribunal must be always presumed to be free of personal prejudice or partiality (see, for instance, Kyprianou, cited above, § 119) and that the personal impartiality of a judge must be presumed until there is proof to the contrary (see Hauschildt v. Denmark, 24 May 1989, § 47, Series A no. 154), the Court further notes that the second to fourth applicants have not presented, either at the domestic level or in the proceedings before it, any information to show that the President of the Supreme Court held such a negative attitude with regard to N.Gv. in relation to the past affairs that had occurred more than a decade before.
  • EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 26290/12

    BURDIASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17
    In the light of the above-mentioned case-law principles, the Court considers that the second to fourth applicants" complaints about the outcome of the ownership dispute do not raise a prima facie issue under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Indeed, this provision cannot be construed as a guarantee that the desired outcome will be obtained in civil litigation (see, for instance, Burdiashvili and Others v. Georgia (dec.), no. 26290/12, § 36, 4 April 2017; see, mutatis mutandis, Slivenko and Others v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 121, ECHR 2002-II (extracts); and see Sardin v. Russia (dec.), no. 69582/01, ECHR 2004-II).
  • EGMR, 26.07.2018 - 10978/06

    BARTAIA v. GEORGIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17
    The requirements of Article 6 § 1 as regards cases concerning civil rights are thus less onerous than they are for criminal charges (see, as a recent authority, Bartaia v. Georgia, no. 10978/06, §§ 28 and 32, 26 July 2018; see also König v. Germany, no. 6232/73, § 96, 28 June 1978).
  • EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

    Verletzung der Unschuldsvermutung eines Verstorbenen durch gerichtliche

  • EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 45729/05

    STURUA v. GEORGIA

  • EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13839/88

    DEBLED v. BELGIUM

  • EKMR, 08.09.1988 - 13021/87

    RUIZ MATEOS v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 7604/76

    FOTI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  • EGMR - 34179/08 (anhängig)

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91

    DIENNET v. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

    DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  • EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

    DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

  • EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

    LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

  • EGMR, 04.09.2003 - 13338/03

    AO

  • EGMR, 16.12.2003 - 48843/99

    COOPER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 21287/02

    PRYSTAVSKA contre l'UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 02.03.2000 - 43715/98

    GARRIDO GUERRERO contre l'ESPAGNE

  • EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 37780/02

    MELTEX LTD v. ARMENIA

  • EGMR, 05.11.2009 - 29612/09

    MARTYNETS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 16.03.2004 - 41258/98

    TORMALA and OTHERS v. FINLAND

  • EGMR, 27.04.2000 - 45023/98

    BEN SALAH ADRAQUI and DHAIME v. SPAIN

  • EGMR, 02.08.2001 - 37119/97

    N.F. c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 53050/21

    ZLATANOV v. BULGARIA

    If Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 applies, Article 18 of the Convention must also be seen as applicable (see OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia, no. 14902/04, § 663, 20 September 2011; Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd and Others v. Georgia, no. 16812/17, §§ 316-17, 18 July 2019; and Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre and Mustafayev v. Azerbaijan, nos.
  • EGMR, 01.02.2024 - 22431/20

    UGULAVA v. GEORGIA (No. 2)

    The Court notes that a party to a judicial process who has doubts about the lawfulness of the appointment of a judge participating in the hearing of his or her case, which could adversely affect the "established by law" quality of that tribunal, will generally be expected to raise those questions before the trial court and/or pursue any other effective remedies provided by national law while the underlying proceedings are still pending (see Sevdari, cited above, § 110; see also, mutatis mutandis, Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd and Others v. Georgia (no. 16812/17, § 304, 18 July 2019, in which the Court has held that when the domestic law offers a possibility of eliminating concerns regarding the independence and/or impartiality of a court or a judge, it is expected that an applicant who truly believes that there are arguable concerns on that account would raise them at the first opportunity).
  • EGMR, 01.06.2023 - 19750/13

    GROSAM v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

    Si le requérant souhaitait à ce stade alléguer une violation des garanties énoncées à l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention, il aurait dû le faire clairement dans son formulaire de requête, à l'instar de ce qu'il a fait par la suite, dans ses observations du 5 novembre 2015 produites devant la chambre (paragraphe 82 ci-dessus, et, en comparaison, Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd et autres c. Géorgie, no 16812/17, § 246, 18 juillet 2019).
  • EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 40072/13

    MIROSLAVA TODOROVA c. BULGARIE

    Thus, any judge in respect of whom there is a legitimate reason to fear a lack of impartiality must withdraw (see Micallef, cited above, for example, where the judge had made public statements relating to the outcome of the case; see also Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd and Others v. Georgia, no. 16812/17, 18 July 2019).
  • EGMR, 12.10.2023 - 27925/21

    Pablo Hasél

    The Court has stated that where no arguable issue, or no interference with the applicant's rights, under the relevant substantive provision has been established, Article 18 cannot be relied upon (see Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd and Others v. Georgia, no. 16812/17, §§ 316-17, 18 July 2019).
  • EGMR, 01.06.2023 - 24827/14

    FU QUAN, S.R.O. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

    Or elle ne l'a fait qu'après, dans ses observations devant la chambre datées du 17 juin 2016 (voir le paragraphe 143 ci-dessus, et comparer avec Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd et autres c. Géorgie, no 16812/17, § 246, 18 juillet 2019).
  • EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 2303/19

    KATSIKEROS v. GREECE

    In particular, in order for an applicant to be able to call into question the independence and/or impartiality of a judge under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant must show that he or she had made an application for recusal of that judge at the domestic level in accordance with the relevant procedural law (compare, among many other authorities, Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd and Others v. Georgia, no. 16812/17, § 304, 18 July 2019, and the case-law cited therein).
  • EGMR, 07.12.2023 - 14767/16

    NAFTOGAZVYDOBUVANNYA, PJSC v. UKRAINE

    In so far as the applicant company argued that those measures had created "a continuing situation", the Court considers that this argument is ill-founded in the light of its relevant case-law, since, whenever the alleged violation of a Convention right is caused by a particular event produced at a particular time (the delivery of a court decision or other written legal act being a vivid example), the legal consequences of such an event, which may even stretch over significant time, do not qualify as "a continuing situation" for the purposes of the calculation of the six-month rule contained in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd and Others v. Georgia, no. 16812/17, § 263, 18 July 2019, and the case-law references therein).
  • EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 30464/13

    AKHALAIA v. GEORGIA

    However, where no arguable issue, or no interference with the applicant's rights, under the relevant substantive provision has been established, Article 18 cannot be relied upon (see Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd and Others v. Georgia, no. 16812/17, §§ 316-17, 18 July 2019).
  • EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 19938/20

    Q AND R v. SLOVENIA

    In this connection, the Court reiterates, in line with its well-established case-law, that a person cannot complain of a violation of his or her Convention rights in proceedings to which he or she was not a party (see Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd and Others v. Georgia, no. 16812/17, § 273, 18 July 2019 § 273, and Kugler v. Austria (dec.), no. 65631/01, 27 November 2008).
  • EGMR - 57935/18 (anhängig)

    BROCI v. ALBANIA and 2 other applications

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