Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MARINA v. LATVIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 39199/98

  PODBIELSKI AND PPU POLPURE v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2010 - 46040/07

  The Government considered that the court fee imposed on the applicant was proportionate because, first, the applicant herself failed to provide the national court with any further evidence which would enable it to objectively assess her actual financial situation, and that the applicant's reference to her status of a low-income person was insufficient proof; and secondly, the Government differentiated the instant complaint from the Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, ECHR 2001-VI, Podbielski and PPU Polpure v. Poland, no. 39199/98, 26 July 2005 and other similar applications already examined by the Court, and found similarities with the application Kupiec v Poland, no. 16828/02, 3 February 2009, in that, in the instant case, the applicant had deliberately inflated the value of her claim and that the court fee would be automatically decreased had the applicant herself claimed a reasonable amount of compensation.

  The Court has also noted that restrictions of a purely financial nature which are completely unrelated to the prospects of success of the claim should be subject to a particularly rigorous scrutiny from the point of view of the interests of justice (see Podbielski and PPU Polpure v. Poland, no. 39199/98, § 65, 26 July 2005).

• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2010 - 46040/07

  It is not for the Court to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic court (see, inter alia, Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 29, Series A no. 28).
• EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 28249/95

  KREUZ c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2010 - 46040/07

  The Government considered that the court fee imposed on the applicant was proportionate because, first, the applicant herself failed to provide the national court with any further evidence which would enable it to objectively assess her actual financial situation, and that the applicant's reference to her status of a low-income person was insufficient proof; and secondly, the Government differentiated the instant complaint from the Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, ECHR 2001-VI, Podbielski and PPU Polpure v. Poland, no. 39199/98, 26 July 2005 and other similar applications already examined by the Court, and found similarities with the application Kupiec v Poland, no. 16828/02, 3 February 2009, in that, in the instant case, the applicant had deliberately inflated the value of her claim and that the court fee would be automatically decreased had the applicant herself claimed a reasonable amount of compensation.
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2010 - 46040/07

  The requirement to pay fees to civil courts at the time of bringing a claim cannot be regarded as a restriction on the right of access to court incompatible per se with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, provided that the very essence of the right of access to court is not impaired and the measures applied are proportionate to the aims pursued in the light of Article 6 (see, among other authorities, Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 59, Series A no. 316-B).
• EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 16828/02

  KUPIEC v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2010 - 46040/07

  The Government considered that the court fee imposed on the applicant was proportionate because, first, the applicant herself failed to provide the national court with any further evidence which would enable it to objectively assess her actual financial situation, and that the applicant's reference to her status of a low-income person was insufficient proof; and secondly, the Government differentiated the instant complaint from the Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, ECHR 2001-VI, Podbielski and PPU Polpure v. Poland, no. 39199/98, 26 July 2005 and other similar applications already examined by the Court, and found similarities with the application Kupiec v Poland, no. 16828/02, 3 February 2009, in that, in the instant case, the applicant had deliberately inflated the value of her claim and that the court fee would be automatically decreased had the applicant herself claimed a reasonable amount of compensation.

• EGMR, 05.03.2024 - 60569/09

  LEKA v. ALBANIA

  As to the starting point of the six-month time-limit then in force, the Court has consistently held that the object and purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention are best served by counting the six-month period as running from the date of service of the written final decision or judgment adopted in domestic proceedings (see, for example, Worm v. Austria, 29 August 1997, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-V; Aras v. Turkey (dec.), no. 29643/05, 2 March 2010; and Marina v. Latvia, no. 46040/07, §§ 39-44, 26 October 2010).
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 7239/07

  VIESTURS v. LATVIA

  Where an applicant is entitled to be served ex officio with a written copy of the final domestic decision the object and purpose of the Convention are best served by counting the six-month period as running from the date of service of the written judgment (see Worm v. Austria, 29 August 1997, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-V, see also Marina v. Latvia, no. 46040/07, §§ 39-44, 26 October 2010).