Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SOMORJAI v. HUNGARY

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SOMORJAI v. HUNGARY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 3989/07

  ULLENS DE SCHOOTEN ET REZABEK c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 60934/13

  It is therefore primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law, if necessary in conformity with EU law, the Court's role being confined to ascertaining whether the effects of such adjudication are compatible with the Convention (see Ullens de Schooten and Rezabek v. Belgium, nos. 3989/07 and 38353/07, § 54, 20 September 2011).

  Indeed, the Court is unable to identify any argument in the Kúria's judgment as to why it considered the interpretation it had adopted so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt, even in the light of the specific characteristics of EU law (see Ullens de Schooten and Rezabek v. Belgium, nos. 3989/07 and 38353/07, § 62 in fine, 20 September 2011).

• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 60934/13

  Furthermore, the Court should not act as a fourth instance and will not therefore question under Article 6 § 1 the judgment of the national courts, unless their findings can be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 61, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

  König ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 60934/13

  The period to be taken into consideration began on 7 September 2006, when the applicant lodged his appeal against the decision of the first-instance pension authority concerning his request for a review of his pension rights (see paragraph 9 above); it was then that a "dispute" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 arose (see, mutatis mutandis, König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, § 98, Series A no. 27; Tóth, Magyar and Tóthné v. Hungary, no. 35701/04, § 19, 6 December 2005; Pocuca v. Croatia, no. 38550/02, § 30, 29 June 2006; and Kugler v. Austria, no. 65631/01, § 36, 14 October 2010).

 
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 60934/13

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EuGH - C-197/14 (anhängig)

  van Dijk

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 60934/13

  The CJEU has also held that the existence of such a possibility must be assessed in the light of the specific characteristics of EU law, the particular difficulties to which its interpretation gives rise and the risk of divergences in judicial decisions within the EU (see Srl Cilfit and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v. Ministry of Health, 283/81, judgment of 6 October 1982, ECR 3415, § 21, and X v. Inspecteur van Rijksbelastingdienst and T.A. van Dijk v. Staatssecretaris van Financiën, joined cases C-72/14 and C-197/14, judgment of 9 September 2015, § 55).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 13.05.2015 - C-72/14

  X - Soziale Sicherheit der Wanderarbeitnehmer - Anwendbare Rechtsvorschriften - …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 60934/13

  The CJEU has also held that the existence of such a possibility must be assessed in the light of the specific characteristics of EU law, the particular difficulties to which its interpretation gives rise and the risk of divergences in judicial decisions within the EU (see Srl Cilfit and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v. Ministry of Health, 283/81, judgment of 6 October 1982, ECR 3415, § 21, and X v. Inspecteur van Rijksbelastingdienst and T.A. van Dijk v. Staatssecretaris van Financiën, joined cases C-72/14 and C-197/14, judgment of 9 September 2015, § 55).
• EuGH, 06.12.2005 - C-461/03

  Gaston Schul Douane-expediteur - Artikel 234 EG - Verpflichtung eines nationalen …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 60934/13

  In applying that provision, the CJEU has held that a court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law is required, where a question of interpretation of EU law (rather than a question relating to the validity of a Community act, see the judgment in Gaston Schul Douane-expediteur BV v. Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit, C-461/03, judgment of 6 December 2005, ECR I-10513, § 19) is raised before it, to comply with its obligation to bring the matter before the CJEU, unless it has established that the question raised is irrelevant or that the EU law provision in question has already been interpreted by the CJEU (acte éclairé) or that the correct application of EU law is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt (acte clair).

• EGMR, 13.02.2020 - 25137/16

  SANOFI PASTEUR c. FRANCE

  En l'espèce, les questions préjudicielles que la société requérante souhaitait voir transmises par la Cour de cassation à la CJUE, qui visaient l'interprétation des articles 4 et 6 de la directive 85/374, étaient formulées avec précision et selon les modalités requises par le droit interne (paragraphes 17-18 ci-dessus) (comparer avec Somorjai c. Hongrie, no 60934/13, §§ 59-60, 28 août 2018).
• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 68475/10

  BLEY v. GERMANY

  Gleichwohl kann die Ablehnung eines Antrags auf eine derartige Vorlage gegen das Gebot eines fairen Verfahrens verstoßen, sofern sie willkürlich erscheint, nämlich wenn die Vorlage abgelehnt wurde, obwohl die anwendbaren Vorschriften keine Ausnahmen von der Vorlagepflicht oder Alternativen dazu vorsehen, wenn die Vorlage mit einer Begründung abgelehnt wird, die in diesen Vorschriften nicht vorgesehen ist, oder wenn die Ablehnung nicht mit den nach den einschlägigen Vorschriften vorgesehenen Gründen versehen ist (siehe z. B. Somorjai ./. Ungarn, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 60934/13, Rdnr. 56, 28.
• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 6656/15

  SOL.IN.MUS. S.R.L. AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  In any event, the domestic courts gave adequate reasoning in their decisions in that regard (see Somorjai v. Hungary, no. 60934/13, § 39, 28 August 2018).
• EGMR, 13.07.2021 - 43639/17

  BIO FARMLAND BETRIEBS S.R.L. c. ROUMANIE

  En l'espèce, les questions préjudicielles que la société requérante souhaitait voir transmises par la cour d'appel à la CJUE, qui visaient l'interprétation de plusieurs articles de droit européen, étaient formulées avec précision et selon les modalités requises par le droit interne (paragraphes 24-25 ci-dessus) (comparer avec Somorjai c. Hongrie, no 60934/13, §§ 59-60, 28 août 2018).
• EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 40424/12

  RAMIZ JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Moreover, as regards what was at stake for the applicant, special diligence was required in the present case, which concerned a pension dispute (see Pejcic v. Serbia, no. 34799/07, § 70, 8 October 2013, and Somorjai v. Hungary, no. 60934/13, § 71, 28 August 2018).