Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 26.07.2018 - 10978/06 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,21846) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BARTAIA v. GEORGIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[FRE]
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01
ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2018 - 10978/06
Furthermore, the Court is not bound by domestic fee scales and practices (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 206, ECHR 2004-II). - EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73
AIREY v. IRELAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2018 - 10978/06
In this context, it must be ascertained whether the applicant's appearance before the courts without the assistance of a lawyer would be effective, in the sense of whether he or she would be able to present his or her case properly and satisfactorily (see, mutatis mutandis, Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 24, Series A no. 32). - EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88
DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2018 - 10978/06
Thus, although these provisions have a certain relevance outside the strict confines of criminal law, the Contracting States have greater latitude when dealing with civil cases concerning civil rights and obligations than they have when dealing with criminal cases (see, for example, Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, §§ 32-33, Series A no. 274; Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 68, ECHR 2002-IV; and Milovanova v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 16411/03, 2 October 2007). - EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 28856/95
JOKELA v. FINLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2018 - 10978/06
Thus, although these provisions have a certain relevance outside the strict confines of criminal law, the Contracting States have greater latitude when dealing with civil cases concerning civil rights and obligations than they have when dealing with criminal cases (see, for example, Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, §§ 32-33, Series A no. 274; Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 68, ECHR 2002-IV; and Milovanova v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 16411/03, 2 October 2007). - EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 16411/03
MILOVANOVA v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2018 - 10978/06
Thus, although these provisions have a certain relevance outside the strict confines of criminal law, the Contracting States have greater latitude when dealing with civil cases concerning civil rights and obligations than they have when dealing with criminal cases (see, for example, Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, §§ 32-33, Series A no. 274; Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 68, ECHR 2002-IV; and Milovanova v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 16411/03, 2 October 2007).
- EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17
RUSTAVI 2 BROADCASTING COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
The requirements of Article 6 § 1 as regards cases concerning civil rights are thus less onerous than they are for criminal charges (see, as a recent authority, Bartaia v. Georgia, no. 10978/06, §§ 28 and 32, 26 July 2018; see also König v. Germany, no. 6232/73, § 96, 28 June 1978). - EGMR, 28.03.2023 - 2562/19
VISEAN c. ROUMANIE
Le grief apparaît comme plutôt formel puisque l'intéressé n'a pas allégué que l'absence de son avocate a entraîné des conséquences graves au point de l'emporter sur l'équité de la procédure prise globalement (voir, a contrario, Bartaia c. Géorgie, no 10978/06, §§ 35-37, 26 juillet 2018).