Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PETROL v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 18.10.2005 - 6778/05

  MPP GOLUB c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2008 - 62605/00

  The Court reiterates that, under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, which only requires normal recourse by an applicant to remedies which are effective, sufficient and available (see, mutatis mutandis, MPP Golub v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 6778/05, ECHR 2005-..., and Karuna v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 43788/05, 3 April 2007).

  Given the close link between the issues of exhaustion of domestic remedies and those of access to a court, the Court considers it appropriate to examine the complaints in relation to the aforementioned sets of proceedings from the point of view of the State's compliance with the applicant company's right of access to a court, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see MPP Golub v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 6778/05, ECHR 2005-...).

• EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 45036/98

  Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi ./. Irland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2008 - 62605/00

  As to the other petroleum products seized by the Prosecutor's Office and allegedly not released from attachment, the Court reiterates that it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law and to establish the facts of the case (see Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi (Bosphorus Airways) v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, § 143, ECHR 2005-...).
• EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

  Schießbefehl

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2008 - 62605/00

  In each such instance, the Court's role is confined to ascertaining whether the effects of such adjudication are compatible with the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Waite and Kennedy, cited above, § 54, and Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 49, ECHR 2001-II).

 
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2008 - 62605/00

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that the "right to a court" is not absolute, but is subject to limitations permitted by implication, in particular where the conditions of admissibility of appeals are concerned (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, pp. 13-18, §§ 28-36).
• EGMR, 24.11.2005 - 49429/99

  CAPITAL BANK AD v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2008 - 62605/00

  The Court recalls that in certain circumstances, the owner of a company will be permitted to bring a Convention application on behalf of the company, notwithstanding the separate legal personality of the company (see Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, judgment of 24 October 1995, Series A no. 330-A, pp. 25-26, §§ 68-71, and Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 49429/99, ECHR 2005-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 28743/03

  MELNITCHOUK c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2008 - 62605/00

  The parties concerned may reasonably expect those rules to be complied with (see Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, § 23, ECHR 2005-..., and Kamenivska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 18941/04, 30 August 2006).
• EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 21287/02

  PRYSTAVSKA contre l'UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2008 - 62605/00

  The court of final instance in ordinary civil proceedings before 29 June 2001 was the Regional Court, which dealt with cases in the course of cassation proceedings (see Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, ECHR 2002-X, and Kucherenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 41974/98, 4 May 1999).
• EGMR, 04.05.1999 - 41974/98

  KUCHERENKO contre l'UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2008 - 62605/00

  The court of final instance in ordinary civil proceedings before 29 June 2001 was the Regional Court, which dealt with cases in the course of cassation proceedings (see Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, ECHR 2002-X, and Kucherenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 41974/98, 4 May 1999).
• EGMR, 30.08.2006 - 18941/04

  KAMENIVSKA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2008 - 62605/00

  The parties concerned may reasonably expect those rules to be complied with (see Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, § 23, ECHR 2005-..., and Kamenivska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 18941/04, 30 August 2006).
• EGMR, 03.04.2007 - 43788/05

  KARUNA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2008 - 62605/00

  The Court reiterates that, under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, which only requires normal recourse by an applicant to remedies which are effective, sufficient and available (see, mutatis mutandis, MPP Golub v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 6778/05, ECHR 2005-..., and Karuna v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 43788/05, 3 April 2007).

• EGMR, 27.09.2012 - 7398/07

  CHADZITASKOS AND FRANTA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  The Court observes, however, that usually in cases where it found no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on this ground the applicants had access to judicial procedures (see, for example, Sedelmayer v. Germany (dec.), no. 30190/06, 10 November 2009; Tarnowski v. Poland (no. 1), no. 33915/03, § 85-86, 29 September 2009; and MPP Petrol v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 62605/00, § 140, 25 March 2008).