Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 351/02 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,44573) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
HAMALAINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 351/02
- EGMR, 04.07.2006 - 351/02
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88
DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 351/02
It is left to the national authorities to ensure in each individual case that the requirements of a "fair hearing" are met (see Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, judgment of 27 October 1993, Series A no. 274, §§ 32-33). - EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84
SCHENK c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 351/02
In particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention (Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 25, § 45). - EGMR, 29.05.1986 - 8562/79
FELDBRUGGE v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 351/02
Most significantly for the present case, it is clear that the requirement of "equality of arms", in the sense of a "fair balance" between the parties, applies in principle to such cases as well as to criminal cases (see the Feldbrugge v. the Netherlands judgment of 26 May 1986, Series A no. 99, p. 17, § 44). - EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75
ALBERT ET LE COMPTE c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 351/02
Thus, although these provisions have a certain relevance outside the strict confines of criminal law (see, mutatis mutandis, Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, p. 20, § 39), the Contracting States have greater latitude when dealing with civil cases concerning civil rights and obligations than they have when dealing with criminal cases.