Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 25782/11 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KARDOS v. CROATIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
KARDOS v. CROATIA
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 25782/11
- EGMR, 14.06.2017 - 25782/11
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (14)
- EGMR, 01.03.2002 - 48778/99
KUTIC v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 25782/11
In this way it embodies the "right to a court", which, according to the Court's case-law, includes not only the right to institute proceedings but also the right to obtain the "determination" of the dispute by a court (see Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 25, ECHR 2002-II, and Menshakova v. Ukraine, no. 377/02, § 52, 8 April 2010).If a general principle nevertheless had to be mentioned, it seems to me that it should rather have been the principle that the right to a court includes not only the right to institute proceedings (right of access) but also the right to a judicial determination of the dispute (see paragraph 48 of the judgment, referring to Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 25, ECHR 2002-II, and Menshakova v. Ukraine, no. 377/02, § 52, 8 April 2010; see the foundations of this principle in König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, § 98, Series A no. 27; Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, § 51, Series A no. 43; Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 49, Series A no. 301-B; and Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 129, ECHR 2004-II).
- EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 377/02
MENSHAKOVA v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 25782/11
In this way it embodies the "right to a court", which, according to the Court's case-law, includes not only the right to institute proceedings but also the right to obtain the "determination" of the dispute by a court (see Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 25, ECHR 2002-II, and Menshakova v. Ukraine, no. 377/02, § 52, 8 April 2010).If a general principle nevertheless had to be mentioned, it seems to me that it should rather have been the principle that the right to a court includes not only the right to institute proceedings (right of access) but also the right to a judicial determination of the dispute (see paragraph 48 of the judgment, referring to Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 25, ECHR 2002-II, and Menshakova v. Ukraine, no. 377/02, § 52, 8 April 2010; see the foundations of this principle in König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, § 98, Series A no. 27; Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, § 51, Series A no. 43; Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 49, Series A no. 301-B; and Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 129, ECHR 2004-II).
- EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75
LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 25782/11
If a general principle nevertheless had to be mentioned, it seems to me that it should rather have been the principle that the right to a court includes not only the right to institute proceedings (right of access) but also the right to a judicial determination of the dispute (see paragraph 48 of the judgment, referring to Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 25, ECHR 2002-II, and Menshakova v. Ukraine, no. 377/02, § 52, 8 April 2010; see the foundations of this principle in König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, § 98, Series A no. 27; Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, § 51, Series A no. 43; Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 49, Series A no. 301-B; and Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 129, ECHR 2004-II).
- EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01
ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 25782/11
If a general principle nevertheless had to be mentioned, it seems to me that it should rather have been the principle that the right to a court includes not only the right to institute proceedings (right of access) but also the right to a judicial determination of the dispute (see paragraph 48 of the judgment, referring to Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 25, ECHR 2002-II, and Menshakova v. Ukraine, no. 377/02, § 52, 8 April 2010; see the foundations of this principle in König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, § 98, Series A no. 27; Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, § 51, Series A no. 43; Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 49, Series A no. 301-B; and Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 129, ECHR 2004-II). - EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87
RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 25782/11
If a general principle nevertheless had to be mentioned, it seems to me that it should rather have been the principle that the right to a court includes not only the right to institute proceedings (right of access) but also the right to a judicial determination of the dispute (see paragraph 48 of the judgment, referring to Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 25, ECHR 2002-II, and Menshakova v. Ukraine, no. 377/02, § 52, 8 April 2010; see the foundations of this principle in König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, § 98, Series A no. 27; Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, § 51, Series A no. 43; Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 49, Series A no. 301-B; and Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 129, ECHR 2004-II). - EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 28249/95
KREUZ c. POLOGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 25782/11
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, 10.07.2012 - 58331/09
GREGACEVIC v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 25782/11
The Court reiterates that the requirements contained in Article 35 § 1 concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period are closely interrelated, since they are not only combined in the same Article, but also expressed in a single sentence whose grammatical construction implies such a correlation (see Hatjianastasiou v. Greece, no. 12945/87, Commission decision of 4 April 1990; Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II (extracts); and Gregacevic v. Croatia, no. 58331/09, § 35, 10 July 2012). - EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78
ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 25782/11
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, 29.01.2004 - 31697/03
BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 25782/11
The Court reiterates that the requirements contained in Article 35 § 1 concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period are closely interrelated, since they are not only combined in the same Article, but also expressed in a single sentence whose grammatical construction implies such a correlation (see Hatjianastasiou v. Greece, no. 12945/87, Commission decision of 4 April 1990; Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II (extracts); and Gregacevic v. Croatia, no. 58331/09, § 35, 10 July 2012). - EGMR, 19.10.1999 - 40177/98
DE PARIAS MERRY contre l'ESPAGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 25782/11
They thus considered, citing the case of De Parias Merry v. Spain ((dec.), no. 40177/98, ECHR 1999-II), that by relying on the Constitutional Court's decision as the final domestic decision and by lodging her application with the Court on 11 April 2011, the applicant had failed to comply with the six-month time-limit. - EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91
PRESSOS COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73
König ./. Deutschland
- EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91
TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 37242/14
TENCE v. SLOVENIA
Moreover, while the Slovenian legislation does not explicitly provide for reopening of civil proceedings following a judgment by the Court finding a violation of the Convention (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 27, ECHR 2015), the Court has already stated that the most appropriate form of redress in cases where it finds that an applicant has not had access to court in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention would be for the legislature to provide for the possibility of reopening the proceedings and re-examining the case in keeping with all the requirements of a fair hearing (see, mutatis mutandis, Kardos v. Croatia, no. 25782/11, § 67, 26 April 2016; and Perak v. Slovenia, no. 37903/09, § 50, 1 March 2016).