Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  POSTOVA BANKA, A.S. v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 1398/03

  MARKOVIC ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2010 - 22736/06

  The Court reiterates that the right of access to a court is an inherent aspect of the safeguards of a fair trial enshrined in Article 6. It secures to everyone the right to have a claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court (for recapitulation of the relevant case-law see, for example, Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 57, Series A no. 93 and Markovic and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 1398/03, §§ 98-99, ECHR 2006-XIV).
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 38886/05

  RASMUSSEN v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2010 - 22736/06

  The Court also reiterates that, in certain circumstances, restrictions on access to a case file may be incompatible with the principles of a fair trial including access to a court (see, for example, K.H. and Others v. Slovakia, no. 32881/04, §§ 64-69, ECHR 2009-... (extracts) and, mutatis mutandis, Turek v. Slovakia, no. 57986/00, §§ 115-116, ECHR 2006-II (extracts) and Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, § 54-56, 28 April 2009).
• EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 57678/00

  BIRO v. SLOVAKIA (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2010 - 22736/06

  It observes that the application primarily raises a question as to the applicability of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ratione materiae to those complaints, in view in particular of the applicant company's specific procedural position at what was a relatively early stage of the proceedings initiated by its criminal complaint, set against the general procedural framework for such complaints, and in view of the other means potentially available to the applicant company in the Slovakian legal order for the assertion of its right (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, ECHR 2004 I, and also Krumpel and Krumpelová v. Slovakia, no. 56195/00, 5 July 2005; Bíro v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 57678/00, 27 June 2006 and Duchonnová v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 29858/03, 2 October 2006).

 
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85

  HELMERS c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2010 - 22736/06

  Leaving aside that the applicant company's contention has not been fully substantiated, the Court notes that neither the Slovakian legal order nor the Convention confer any right to have a criminal prosecution instituted against another individual (see, among may other authorities, Helmers v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, § 29, Series A no. 212 A, and Bíro v. Slovakia (no. 2), cited above, § 44).
• EGMR, 02.10.2006 - 29858/03

  DUCHONOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2010 - 22736/06

  It observes that the application primarily raises a question as to the applicability of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ratione materiae to those complaints, in view in particular of the applicant company's specific procedural position at what was a relatively early stage of the proceedings initiated by its criminal complaint, set against the general procedural framework for such complaints, and in view of the other means potentially available to the applicant company in the Slovakian legal order for the assertion of its right (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, ECHR 2004 I, and also Krumpel and Krumpelová v. Slovakia, no. 56195/00, 5 July 2005; Bíro v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 57678/00, 27 June 2006 and Duchonnová v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 29858/03, 2 October 2006).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2010 - 22736/06

  The Court reiterates that the right of access to a court is an inherent aspect of the safeguards of a fair trial enshrined in Article 6. It secures to everyone the right to have a claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court (for recapitulation of the relevant case-law see, for example, Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 57, Series A no. 93 and Markovic and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 1398/03, §§ 98-99, ECHR 2006-XIV).
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 56195/00

  KRUMPEL AND KRUMPELOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2010 - 22736/06

  It observes that the application primarily raises a question as to the applicability of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ratione materiae to those complaints, in view in particular of the applicant company's specific procedural position at what was a relatively early stage of the proceedings initiated by its criminal complaint, set against the general procedural framework for such complaints, and in view of the other means potentially available to the applicant company in the Slovakian legal order for the assertion of its right (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, ECHR 2004 I, and also Krumpel and Krumpelová v. Slovakia, no. 56195/00, 5 July 2005; Bíro v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 57678/00, 27 June 2006 and Duchonnová v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 29858/03, 2 October 2006).
• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99

  PEREZ c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2010 - 22736/06

  It observes that the application primarily raises a question as to the applicability of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ratione materiae to those complaints, in view in particular of the applicant company's specific procedural position at what was a relatively early stage of the proceedings initiated by its criminal complaint, set against the general procedural framework for such complaints, and in view of the other means potentially available to the applicant company in the Slovakian legal order for the assertion of its right (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, ECHR 2004 I, and also Krumpel and Krumpelová v. Slovakia, no. 56195/00, 5 July 2005; Bíro v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 57678/00, 27 June 2006 and Duchonnová v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 29858/03, 2 October 2006).
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 32881/04

  K.H. AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2010 - 22736/06

  The Court also reiterates that, in certain circumstances, restrictions on access to a case file may be incompatible with the principles of a fair trial including access to a court (see, for example, K.H. and Others v. Slovakia, no. 32881/04, §§ 64-69, ECHR 2009-... (extracts) and, mutatis mutandis, Turek v. Slovakia, no. 57986/00, §§ 115-116, ECHR 2006-II (extracts) and Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, § 54-56, 28 April 2009).

• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 8014/07

  FRUNI v. SLOVAKIA

  In that respect, the Court reiterates that, in certain circumstances, restrictions on access to a case file may be incompatible with the principles of a fair trial (see, for example, K.H. and Others v. Slovakia, no. 32881/04, §§ 64-69, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); mutatis mutandis, Turek v. Slovakia, no. 57986/00, §§ 115-116, ECHR 2006-II (extracts); Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, § 54-56, 28 April 2009 and Postová banka, a.s. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 22736/06, 20 October 2010).