Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BENET PRAHA, SPOL. S R.O., v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of P1-1 Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 708/02

  FEHR c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2011 - 33908/04

  On 11 March 2004 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant company's constitutional appeal (II. ÚS 708/02).

  The applicant company complained that it had not been allowed access to the criminal files that the Constitutional Court had requested in the proceedings that resulted in its 11 March 2004 decision (II. ÚS 708/02) and that it had been told that only its legal representative could consult the file at the Constitutional Court.

  This text was reproduced verbatim in the subsequent application forms (applications nos. 7937/05, 25249/05 and 29402/05) with an additional reference to the first proceedings before the Constitutional Court (II. ÚS 708/02) and thus clearly referring to the alleged denial of access to the criminal file.

• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 781/06

  T. E. gegen Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2011 - 33908/04

  In view of these wordings of its complaints, the Court finds that these submissions cannot qualify as a succinct statement, as required by Rule 47 § 1(e) of the Rules of Court (see Eule v. Germany (dec.), no. 781/06, ECHR 10 March 2009), of an alleged violation of the applicant's right to a fair trial on the account of non-communication of the submissions of the opposing parties.
• EGMR, 25.10.1989 - 10842/84

  ALLAN JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2011 - 33908/04

  In determining whether this requirement is met, the Court recognises that the State enjoys a wide margin of appreciation with regard both to choosing the means of enforcement and to ascertaining whether the consequences of enforcement are justified in the general interest for the purpose of achieving the object of the law in question (see, for example, Immobiliare Saffi, cited above; Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 25 October 1989, § 55, Series A no. 163; and AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 52, Series A no. 108).
• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

  AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2011 - 33908/04

  In determining whether this requirement is met, the Court recognises that the State enjoys a wide margin of appreciation with regard both to choosing the means of enforcement and to ascertaining whether the consequences of enforcement are justified in the general interest for the purpose of achieving the object of the law in question (see, for example, Immobiliare Saffi, cited above; Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 25 October 1989, § 55, Series A no. 163; and AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 52, Series A no. 108).

• EGMR, 26.03.2024 - 31832/20

  REBAC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  In this context the Court reiterates that the obligation to complete a trial within a reasonable time cannot be interpreted in such a way as would violate other procedural rights under Article 6 (see Nideröst-Huber v. Switzerland, 18 February 1997, § 30, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I, and BENet Praha, spol. s r.o. v. the Czech Republic, no. 33908/04, § 141, 24 February 2011).
• EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 19750/13

  GROSAM v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  s r.o. v. the Czech Republic (no. 33908/04, § 130, 24 February 2011), and Allan v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 48539/99, ECHR 2002-IX).
• EGMR, 17.03.2022 - 24827/14

  FU QUAN, S.R.O. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Nonetheless, they referred to Article 48 of the CCP which had been in force at the relevant time and to the settled practice, according to which the courts were informed if the seizure was excessive or of a lack of grounds by means of a request filed by the parties to the proceedings, and were consequently obliged to decide on the matter (see BENet Praha, spol. s r.o. v. the Czech Republic, no. 33908/04, 24 February 2011, §§ 16, 45, 50 etc.).

 
• EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 7318/09

  C.M. c. SUISSE

  Toutefois, dans d'autres affaires portant également sur un grief analogue, la Cour a rejeté l'exception tirée de l'absence d'un préjudice important au motif que les observations non communiquées contenaient des éléments nouveaux qui avaient de plus joué explicitement (BENet Praha, spol. s.r.o. c. République tchèque, no 33908/04, § 135, 24 février 2011) ou au moins potentiellement (3A.CZ s.r.o. c. République tchèque, no 21835/06, § 34, 10 février 2011, et Joos c. Suisse, no 43245/07, § 20, 15 novembre 2012) un rôle pour les jugements adoptés par la suite.
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 13175/03

  GIUSTI c. ITALIE

  s r.o. c. République tchèque, no 33908/04, 24 février 2011, avec lesquelles la Cour a confirmé l'approche adoptée dans l'affaire Holub, précitée).
• EGMR, 16.05.2019 - 9825/13

  TASEV v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  Indeed, he did not argue and there is nothing to indicate that he had no knowledge of them (see BENet Praha, spol. s r.o. v. the Czech Republic, no. 33908/04, § 125, 24 February 2011).
• EGMR, 07.04.2020 - 5738/18

  OOO AVRORA MALOETAZHNOE STROITELSTVO c. RUSSIE

  De l'avis de la Cour, cette durée de la saisie des parcelles, avec des périodes d'interruption de la mesure, est certes conséquente mais ne rend pas, en soi, l'ingérence disproportionnée (comparer avec BENet Praha, spol. s r.o. c. République tchèque, no 33908/04, 24 février 2011, concernant une saisie durant près de quatre ans et neuf mois, et avec Invest Kapa c. République tchèque (déc.) [comité], no 19782/13, § 42, 12 juin 2018, concernant une saisie durant près de onze ans).
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 78494/14

  NIKOLAYENKO ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Cette durée de la saisie n'apparaît pas déraisonnable en l'espèce (comparer, par exemple, avec l'arrêt de non-violation BENet Praha, spol. s r.o. c. République tchèque (no 33908/04, 24 février 2011) où la saisie est restée en place près de 4 ans et 9 mois).
• EGMR, 01.06.2023 - 25775/15

  KONECNÝ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  The Court further observes that, unlike in other previous cases where it rejected a similar inadmissibility plea (see BENet Praha, spol. s r.o. v. the Czech Republic, no. 33908/04, § 135, 24 February 2011; 3A.CZ s.r.o. v. the Czech Republic, no. 21835/06, § 34, 10 February 2011; and Janyr v. the Czech Republic, no. 42937/08, §§ 49-53, 31 October 2013), the defect here at issue took place before the Supreme Court, which was not the last instance dealing with the applicant's grievances at domestic level.
• EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 26327/16

  ROIC ERCEG v. CROATIA

  s r.o. v. the Czech Republic, no. 33908/04, § 135, 24 February 2011; and Joos v. Switzerland, no. 43245/07, § 20, 15 November 2012).
• EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 9965/08

  MATOUSEK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC