Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHARLAMOV AND SHCHERBATENKO v. RUSSIA

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

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

• EKMR, 16.04.1998 - 36524/97

  DARNAY v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 40959/19

  Litigants must also take appropriate measures to ensure effective receipt of correspondence the domestic courts may send them (see Perihan and Mezopotamya Basin Yayin A.S. v. Turkey, no. 21377/03, § 38, 21 January 2014; Boyko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 17382/04, 23 October 2007; and Darnay v. Hungary, no. 36524/97, Commission decision of 16 April 1998).
• EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 17382/04

  BOYKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 40959/19

  Litigants must also take appropriate measures to ensure effective receipt of correspondence the domestic courts may send them (see Perihan and Mezopotamya Basin Yayin A.S. v. Turkey, no. 21377/03, § 38, 21 January 2014; Boyko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 17382/04, 23 October 2007; and Darnay v. Hungary, no. 36524/97, Commission decision of 16 April 1998).
• EGMR, 15.05.2007 - 3040/03

  BABUNIDZE v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 40959/19

  The Court reiterates that domestic courts must make reasonable efforts to summon the parties to a hearing (see Kolegovy v. Russia, no. 15226/05, § 42, 1 March 2012, and Babunidze v. Russia (dec.), no. 3040/03, 15 May 2007).

 
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 2430/06

  GANKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 40959/19

  Moreover, the Court has noted that a lack or deficiency of reasons in domestic decisions as regards the proof of receipt of summonses by the applicants, as well as the domestic courts' failure to assess the necessity to adjourn hearings pending the applicants' proper notification or to delve on the nature of their legal claims which could have rendered the applicants' presence unnecessary cannot be made up ex post facto in the Court proceedings, for it cannot take the place of the national courts which had the evidence before them (see Gankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 2430/06 and 3 others, §§ 41-42, 31 May 2016).
• EGMR, 01.03.2012 - 15226/05

  KOLEGOVY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 40959/19

  The Court reiterates that domestic courts must make reasonable efforts to summon the parties to a hearing (see Kolegovy v. Russia, no. 15226/05, § 42, 1 March 2012, and Babunidze v. Russia (dec.), no. 3040/03, 15 May 2007).
• EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 21377/03

  PERIHAN AND MEZOPOTAMYA BASIN YAYIN A.S. v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 40959/19

  Litigants must also take appropriate measures to ensure effective receipt of correspondence the domestic courts may send them (see Perihan and Mezopotamya Basin Yayin A.S. v. Turkey, no. 21377/03, § 38, 21 January 2014; Boyko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 17382/04, 23 October 2007; and Darnay v. Hungary, no. 36524/97, Commission decision of 16 April 1998).

• EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 54567/13

  MUSAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Noting the admission contained in the Government's declaration and the amount of compensation proposed - which is consistent with the amounts awarded in recent similar cases (see, for example, Kotlyar v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 36124/13, 10 November 2022; Kharlamov and Shcherbatenko v. Russia [Committee], nos. 40959/19 and 19258/20, 23 June 2022; and Religious Community of Jehovah's Witnesses and Hansen v. Azerbaijan [Committee], no. 52682/07, § 42, 30 January 2020) - the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue its examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention).