Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 17931/07 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,63894) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
GARZICIC v. MONTENEGRO
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 17931/07
- EGMR, 14.09.2011 - 17931/07
- EGMR - 17931/07
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 17931/07
In its Golder v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1975, the Court held that Article 6 § 1 "secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal" (§ 36, Series A no. 18). - EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96
ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 17931/07
The "right to a court", of which the right of access is an aspect, may be relied on by anyone who considers on arguable grounds that an interference with the exercise of his or her (civil) rights is unlawful and complains that no possibility was afforded to submit that claim to a court meeting the requirements of Article 6 § 1 (see, inter alia, Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 117, ECHR 2005-X). - EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86
VIDAL c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 17931/07
The Court's task is to ascertain whether the proceedings in issue, considered as a whole, were fair as required by Article 6 § 1 (see, amongst many authorities, Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247 B; Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 33, Series A no. 235 B). - EGMR, 31.07.2001 - 42195/98
MORTIER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 17931/07
The "right to a court", however, is not absolute; it is subject to limitations permitted by implication, in particular where the "conditions of admissibility of an appeal are concerned" since by its very nature it calls for regulation by a State, which enjoys a certain margin of appreciation in this regard (see García Manibardo v. Spain, no. 38695/97, § 36, ECHR 2000-II, and Mortier v. France, no. 42195/98, § 33, 31 July 2001).