Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BÂRZA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BARZA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 1867/06

  MOLDOVAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 45234/08

  The Court reiterates that the effect of Article 6 § 1 is, inter alia, to place a "tribunal" under a duty to conduct a proper examination of submissions, arguments and evidence adduced by parties to a case, without prejudice to its assessment of whether they are relevant to its decision, given that the Court is not called upon to examine whether arguments have been adequately met (see Moldovan v. Romania (dec.), no. 1867/06, § 22, 15 October 2013; Buzescu v. Romania, no. 61302/00, § 63, 24 May 2005; and Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 80, ECHR 2004-I).
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 30383/03

  SIVOVA ET KOLEVA c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 45234/08

  The extent to which this duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision and must be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case (see Sivova and Koleva v. Bulgaria, no. 30383/03, § 76, 15 November 2011, and Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 29, Series A no. 303-A).
• EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 7986/06

  MOLDOVAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 45234/08

  Nevertheless, although Article 6 § 1 obliges courts to give reasons for their decisions, it cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument (see Moldovan v. Romania (dec.), no. 7986/06, § 37, 19 November 2013, and Burg v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, ECHR 2003-II).
• EGMR, 28.01.2003 - 34763/02

  BURG et AUTRES contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 45234/08

  Nevertheless, although Article 6 § 1 obliges courts to give reasons for their decisions, it cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument (see Moldovan v. Romania (dec.), no. 7986/06, § 37, 19 November 2013, and Burg v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, ECHR 2003-II).

• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 59133/09

  MISCHIE c. ROUMANIE

  Cependant, cet article ne peut se comprendre comme exigeant une réponse détaillée à chaque argument (Van de Hurk c. Pays-Bas, arrêt du 19 avril 1994, série A no 288, p. 19, § 59 ; Burg c. France (déc.), no 34763/02, CEDH 2003-II et Bârza et autres c. Roumanie (déc.), no 45234/08, § 31, 24 novembre 2015).