Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 47072/15   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2018,33979
EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 47072/15 (https://dejure.org/2018,33979)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23.10.2018 - 47072/15 (https://dejure.org/2018,33979)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23. Oktober 2018 - 47072/15 (https://dejure.org/2018,33979)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,33979) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

  • EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

    PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 47072/15
    The Court has previously dealt with cases where it could not speculate as to what the outcome of the trial would have been had there been no violation of the procedural guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 80, ECHR 1999-II; Destrehem v. France, no. 56651/00, § 52, 18 May 2004; and Miessen v. Belgium, no. 31517/12, § 78, 18 October 2016).

    In any event, we find it unreasonable to regard the applicant company as having suffered a loss of real opportunities, as happened in those cases cited by the majority in paragraph 66 of the judgment (Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 80, ECHR 1999 II; Destrehem v. France, no. 56651/00, § 52, 18 May 2004; and Miessen v. Belgium, no. 31517/12, § 78, 18 October 2016).

  • EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 56651/00

    DESTREHEM c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 47072/15
    The Court has previously dealt with cases where it could not speculate as to what the outcome of the trial would have been had there been no violation of the procedural guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 80, ECHR 1999-II; Destrehem v. France, no. 56651/00, § 52, 18 May 2004; and Miessen v. Belgium, no. 31517/12, § 78, 18 October 2016).

    In any event, we find it unreasonable to regard the applicant company as having suffered a loss of real opportunities, as happened in those cases cited by the majority in paragraph 66 of the judgment (Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 80, ECHR 1999 II; Destrehem v. France, no. 56651/00, § 52, 18 May 2004; and Miessen v. Belgium, no. 31517/12, § 78, 18 October 2016).

  • EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

    RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 47072/15
    The Court, master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 114, ECHR 2018), will examine the complaint from the standpoint of Article 6 of the Convention alone, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:.
  • EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

    Öztürk ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 47072/15
    However, this is not decisive (see Öztürk v. Germany, 21 February 1984, § 52, Series A no. 73, and A. Menarini Diagnostics S.R.L., cited above, § 39).
  • EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 69042/01

    OOO NESTE ST. PETERSBURG, ZAO KIRISHIAVTOSERVICE, OOO NEVSKAYA TOPLIVNAYA, ZAO

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 47072/15
    69042/01, 69050/01, 69054/01, 69055/01, 69056/01, 69058/01, 3 June 2004; and contrast with Janosevic v. Sweden, no. 34619/97, § 68, ECHR 2002-VII).
  • EGMR, 15.12.2020 - 33399/18

    PISKIN v. TURKEY

    I explained in my separate opinion in the case of Ali Riza and Others v. Turkey (nos. 30226/10 and 4 others) how the doctrine of the loss of real opportunities had been reflected in a number of judgments rendered by the Court, notably in Produkcija Plus storitveno podjetje d.o.o. v. Slovenia, no. 47072/15, paragraphs 66 and 67, 23. October 2018, Pelisser and Sassi v. France (GC), no. 25444/94, paragraph 80, ECHR 1999-II, Destrehem v. France, no. 56651/00, paragraph 52, 18 May 2004, and Miessen v. Belgium, no. 31517/12, paragraph 78, 18 October 2016.
  • EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 30226/10

    ALI RIZA AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    I argue that such a position is contrary to a number of judgments of this Court, notably with those in Produkcija Plus storitveno podjetje d.o.o. v. Slovenia (no. 47072/15, §§ 66 and 67, 23 October 2018), Pélissier and Sassi v. France 5 5(GC), no. 25444/94, § 80, ECHR 1999-II), Destrehem v. France (no. 56651/00, § 52, 18 May 2004), and Miessen v. Belgium (no. 31517/12, § 78, 18 October 2016).
  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 03.09.2020 - C-308/19

    Whiteland Import Export - Vorabentscheidungsersuchen - Wettbewerb - Kartelle -

    49 Vgl. EGMR, Urteile vom 3. Dezember 2002, Lilly/Frankreich (Beschwerde Nr. 53892/00), vom 11. Juni 2009, Dubus S.A./Frankreich (Beschwerde Nr. 5242/04), §§ 37 und 38, vom 27. September 2011, Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l./Italien (Beschwerde Nr. 43509/08), §§ 38 bis 44, sowie vom 23. Oktober 2018, Produkcija Plus Storitveno podjetje d.o.o./Slowenien (Beschwerde Nr. 47072/15), §§ 45 und 46.
  • EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 49652/10

    VERMEERSCH c. BELGIQUE

    Toutefois, eu égard surtout à l'arrêt d'annulation prononcé par le Conseil d'État qui constituait la Région flamande péremptoirement en faute, elle n'estime pas déraisonnable de penser que le requérant a subi une perte de chances réelles quant à son action contre celle-ci (voir, mutatis mutandis, Cudak c. Lituanie [GC], no 15869/02, § 79, CEDH 2010, Biraghi et autres c. Italie, nos 3429/09 et 21 autres, § 52, 24 juin 2014, Miessen c. Belgique, no 31517/12, § 78, 18 octobre 2016, et Produkcija Plus Storitveno podjetje d.o.o. c. Slovénie, no 47072/15, §§ 66-67, 23 octobre 2018).
  • EGMR, 01.10.2019 - 37858/14

    CARREFOUR FRANCE c. FRANCE

    Ces éléments confirment l'applicabilité de l'article 6 dans son volet pénal (voir, par exemple, Produkcija Plus Storitveno podjetje d.o.o. c. Slovénie, no 47072/15, §§ 45-46, 23 octobre 2018), applicabilité que, du reste, le Gouvernement admet.
  • EGMR - 15525/23 (anhängig)

    MAKOVAC FRANKA v. SLOVENIA and 1 other application

    (b) Was the dispensing with an oral hearing in the present case justified (see Sancakli v. Turkey, no. 1385/07, § 45, 15 May 2018; Flisar v. Slovenia, no. 3127/09, § 38, 29 September 2011; and Produkcija Plus Storitveno podjetje d.o.o. v. Slovenia, no. 47072/15, § 54, 23 October 2018) and did the domestic courts provide sufficient reason for their decision not to hold an oral hearing (see Mtchedlishvili v. Georgia, no. 894/12, § 39, 25 February 2021)?.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht