Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 11239/11   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2015,5350
EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 11239/11 (https://dejure.org/2015,5350)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26.03.2015 - 11239/11 (https://dejure.org/2015,5350)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26. März 2015 - 11239/11 (https://dejure.org/2015,5350)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,5350) 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 ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

  • EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 28249/95

    KREUZ c. POLOGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 11239/11
    And in civil matters one can scarcely conceive of the rule of law without there being a possibility of having access to the courts (see, among many other authorities, Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, §§ 34 in fine and 35-36, Series A no. 18; Z. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, §§ 91-93, ECHR 2001-V; and Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, § 52, ECHR 2001-VI).
  • EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

    GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 11239/11
    And in civil matters one can scarcely conceive of the rule of law without there being a possibility of having access to the courts (see, among many other authorities, Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, §§ 34 in fine and 35-36, Series A no. 18; Z. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, §§ 91-93, ECHR 2001-V; and Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, § 52, ECHR 2001-VI).
  • EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 42049/98

    ZWIAZEK NAUCZYCIELSTWA POLSKIEGO v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 11239/11
    Where the individual's access is limited either by operation of law or in fact, the Court will examine whether the limitation imposed impaired the essence of the right and, in particular, whether it pursued a legitimate aim and whether there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 57, Series A no. 93; Zwiazek Nauczycielstwa Polskiego v. Poland, no. 42049/98, § 29, ECHR 2004-IX; and Szwagrun-Baurycza v. Poland, no. 41187/02, § 49, 24 October 2006).
  • EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 41187/02

    SZWAGRUN-BAURYCZA v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 11239/11
    Where the individual's access is limited either by operation of law or in fact, the Court will examine whether the limitation imposed impaired the essence of the right and, in particular, whether it pursued a legitimate aim and whether there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 57, Series A no. 93; Zwiazek Nauczycielstwa Polskiego v. Poland, no. 42049/98, § 29, ECHR 2004-IX; and Szwagrun-Baurycza v. Poland, no. 41187/02, § 49, 24 October 2006).
  • EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

    ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 11239/11
    Where the individual's access is limited either by operation of law or in fact, the Court will examine whether the limitation imposed impaired the essence of the right and, in particular, whether it pursued a legitimate aim and whether there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 57, Series A no. 93; Zwiazek Nauczycielstwa Polskiego v. Poland, no. 42049/98, § 29, ECHR 2004-IX; and Szwagrun-Baurycza v. Poland, no. 41187/02, § 49, 24 October 2006).
  • EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 47273/99

    BELES AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 11239/11
    In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court, unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, amongst many others, Beles and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 47273/99, § 48, ECHR 2002 IX).
  • EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 63206/10

    JÜSSI OSAWE v. ESTONIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 11239/11
    Since such procedural requirement or pre-condition to direct recourse to the courts is in substance a limitation to the access to a court, the Court must assess whether the manner in which the limitation at issue operated in the present case restricted or reduced the applicants" access to court in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired (see Jüssi Osawe v. Estonia, no. 63206/10, §§ 36 and 43, 31 July 2014).
  • EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

    TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 11239/11
    The right of access to court is not, however, absolute and it may be subject to legitimate restrictions (see Golder, cited above, § 39; Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, §§ 62-67, Series A no. 316-B; and Stubbings and Others v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1996, §§ 51-52, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV).
  • EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 45611/13

    GREGURIC v. CROATIA

    The Court must next examine whether there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the legitimate aim pursued by the State (see, for example, Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 93, ECHR 2001-V, and Momcilovic v. Croatia, no. 11239/11, § 47, 26 March 2015).
  • EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 31619/16

    KRASIC v. CROATIA

    By failing to advance these costs the applicant voluntarily renounced her proposal to obtain such report and essentially brough about a situation in which she prevented the domestic courts from examining the merits of her case (compare with Kovacevic v. Croatia, no. 58411/12, § 28, 28 March 2017, and Momcilovic v. Croatia, no. 11239/11, § 55, 26 March 2015).
  • EGMR, 24.10.2017 - 20199/14

    NESTERENKO ET GAYDUKOV c. RUSSIE

    Enfin, le Gouvernement est d'avis que la présente situation se rapproche de celle observée dans l'affaire Momcilovic c. Croatie (no 11239/11, §§ 17, 52 et 56, 26 mars 2015) et précise, à cet égard que, dans celle-ci, la procédure administrative de règlement du litige préalable à la saisine du tribunal a été considérée comme conforme à l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention.
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