Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GHUYUMCHYAN v. ARMENIA

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

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 53862/07
• EGMR, 21.09.2016 - 53862/07
• EGMR - 53862/07

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 53862/07

  Once this burden of proof has been satisfied, it falls to the applicant to establish that the remedy advanced by the Government was in fact exhausted, or was for some reason inadequate and ineffective in the particular circumstances of the case, or that special circumstances existed which absolved him or her from this requirement (see Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts) and Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, § 67, 28 March 2006).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 53862/07

  However, these limitations must not restrict or reduce a person's access in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired; lastly, such limitations will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if they do not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see, among other authorities, Levages Prestations Services v. France, 23 October 1996, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V citing Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 57, Series A no. 93; Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 59, Series A no. 316-B and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 230, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80

  GILLOW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 53862/07

  Furthermore, the requirement that an appellant be represented by a qualified lawyer before the court of cassation is compatible with the characteristics of the Supreme Court as a highest court examining appeals on points of law and it is a common feature of the legal systems in several member States of the Council of Europe (see, for instance, Sialkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, § 106, 22 March 2007; Gillow v. the United Kingdom, 24 November 1986, § 69, Series A no. 109).

 
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81

  MONNELL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 53862/07

  Account must be taken of the entirety of the proceedings conducted in the domestic legal order and of the role of the appellate or cassation court therein (see Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, § 56, Series A no. 115 and the cases cited therein; Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 59).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 53862/07

  The Court reiterates that in order to be able to lodge an application in accordance with Article 34, an individual must be able to show that he or she was "directly affected" by the measure complained of (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 96, ECHR 2014 and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 53862/07

  In particular, the parents, spouse or children of a deceased applicant have been accepted to be entitled to take part in the proceedings, if they express their wish to do so (see, for instance, the widow and children in Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 2, Series A no. 281-A and Stojkovic v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 14818/02, § 25, 8 November 2007).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 53862/07

  However, these limitations must not restrict or reduce a person's access in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired; lastly, such limitations will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if they do not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see, among other authorities, Levages Prestations Services v. France, 23 October 1996, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V citing Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 57, Series A no. 93; Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 59, Series A no. 316-B and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 230, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 53862/07

  However, where such courts do exist, the guarantees of Article 6 must be complied with, for instance in that it guarantees to litigants an effective right of access to the courts for the determination of their "civil rights and obligations" (see Levages Prestations Services, cited above, § 44; and Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 26, Series A no. 32).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 53862/07

  The Court points out that the six-month rule is a mandatory one which the Court has jurisdiction to apply of its own motion (see, in particular, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 160, ECHR 2004-II), even if the Government have not raised that objection (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98

  KARNER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 53862/07

  This criterion, however, is not to be applied in a rigid, mechanical and inflexible way throughout the proceedings (see Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, § 25, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM