Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VUJOVIC AND LIPA D.O.O. v. MONTENEGRO

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  VUJOVIC AND LIPA D.O.O. v. MONTENEGRO

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 18912/15
• EGMR, 30.01.2019 - 18912/15

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 18912/15

  However, where such courts do exist, the guarantees of Article 6 must be complied with, inter alia, by ensuring to litigants an effective access to the courts for the determination of their "civil rights and obligations" (see, among many other authorities, Levages Prestations Services v. France, 23 October 1996, § 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, and Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, §§ 13-15, Series A no. 277-A).
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 74153/01

  POPOV v. MOLDOVA (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 18912/15

  The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 only (see Sukhorubchenko v. Russia, no. 69315/01, § 60, 10 February 2005; see also, mutatis mutandis, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 187, ECHR 2004-II; and Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 58, 18 January 2005).
• EGMR, 10.02.2005 - 69315/01

  SUKHORUBCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 18912/15

  The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 only (see Sukhorubchenko v. Russia, no. 69315/01, § 60, 10 February 2005; see also, mutatis mutandis, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 187, ECHR 2004-II; and Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 58, 18 January 2005).

 
• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 18912/15

  Furthermore, a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (ibid.; see also Cordova v. Italy (no. 1), no. 40877/98, § 54, ECHR 2003-I; the recapitulation of the relevant principles in Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 65, Series A no. 294-B; and Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others, cited above, § 89).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 18912/15

  The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 only (see Sukhorubchenko v. Russia, no. 69315/01, § 60, 10 February 2005; see also, mutatis mutandis, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 187, ECHR 2004-II; and Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 58, 18 January 2005).
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 18912/15

  The relevant principles with respect to the right of access to a court are set out in a long line of case-law starting with Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18, and finding recent expression in Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, § 120, ECHR 2016 and Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, §§ 84-90, ECHR 2016 (extracts).