Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TERNOVSKIS v. LATVIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing Adversarial trial Equality of arms) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Ternovskis v. Latvia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 33637/02
• EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 33637/02

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 2999/03

  DOVGUCHITS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 33637/02

  The Court will apply the Vilho Eskelinen criteria in the present case, as it has done in various other cases lodged with the Court before the adoption of that judgment but decided after that date (see, for example, Dovguchits v. Russia, no. 2999/03, § 24, 7 June 2007; Redka v. Ukraine, no. 17788/02, § 25, 21 June 2007; Rizhamadze v. Georgia, no. 2745/03, § 27, 31 July 2007; Stefanescu v. Romania, no. 9555/03, § 20, 11 October 2007; and Vanjak v. Croatia, no. 29889/04, § 32, 14 January 2010).
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 33637/02

  This approach is consistent with the Court's well-established approach to the Convention as a living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions (see, for example, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 41, Series A no. 31, and Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, § 53, Series A no. 112), a principle which reflects the general rule that the interpretation of international treaties requires consideration of the evolution of the relevant legal norms and concepts (see Demir and Baykara v. Turkey [GC], no. 34503/97, § 153, ECHR 2008; and Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), [1971] International Court of Justice Reports 16, pp.
• EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 17788/02

  REDKA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 33637/02

  The Court will apply the Vilho Eskelinen criteria in the present case, as it has done in various other cases lodged with the Court before the adoption of that judgment but decided after that date (see, for example, Dovguchits v. Russia, no. 2999/03, § 24, 7 June 2007; Redka v. Ukraine, no. 17788/02, § 25, 21 June 2007; Rizhamadze v. Georgia, no. 2745/03, § 27, 31 July 2007; Stefanescu v. Romania, no. 9555/03, § 20, 11 October 2007; and Vanjak v. Croatia, no. 29889/04, § 32, 14 January 2010).

 
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 9747/04

  GOROU c. GRECE (N° 4)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 33637/02

  The Government sought to differentiate the present case from two comparable cases against Latvia where the Court had found a violation of Article 6 § 1 (Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, ECHR 2009, and Miholapa, cited above), seeking instead to assimilate it to the case of Gorou v. Greece (no. 4) (no. 9747/04, 11 January 2007), in which the Court had declared a complaint concerning the applicant's absence from a hearing before an appellate court manifestly ill-founded, emphasising that the applicant in that case had been a civil party in criminal proceedings, whose procedural rights in that capacity were not the same as those of a prosecutor and an accused (ibid., § 26).
• EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 37112/97

  FOGARTY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 33637/02

  Secondly, the court referred to the Strasbourg Court's judgments in the cases of Golder v. the United Kingdom (21 February 1975, § 38, Series A no. 18) and Fogarty v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 37112/97, § 33, ECHR 2001-XI), in which it was held that the right to access to a court was not absolute and was subject to limitations.
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

  JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 33637/02

  This approach is consistent with the Court's well-established approach to the Convention as a living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions (see, for example, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 41, Series A no. 31, and Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, § 53, Series A no. 112), a principle which reflects the general rule that the interpretation of international treaties requires consideration of the evolution of the relevant legal norms and concepts (see Demir and Baykara v. Turkey [GC], no. 34503/97, § 153, ECHR 2008; and Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), [1971] International Court of Justice Reports 16, pp.
• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 33637/02

  The Court notes that the criteria deriving from the Government-cited Pellegrin judgment were developed further by the Grand Chamber on 19 April 2007 (Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, §§ 50-64, ECHR 2007-II).
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 33637/02

  Secondly, the court referred to the Strasbourg Court's judgments in the cases of Golder v. the United Kingdom (21 February 1975, § 38, Series A no. 18) and Fogarty v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 37112/97, § 33, ECHR 2001-XI), in which it was held that the right to access to a court was not absolute and was subject to limitations.
• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  LEANDER c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 33637/02

  Referring to the European Court of Human Rights" judgment in the case of Leander v. Sweden (26 March 1987, § 59, Series A no. 116), it noted that interests of national security could justify such an interference with private life and concluded that in the applicant's particular situation such an interference had been justified.
• EGMR, 08.12.1999 - 28541/95

  PELLEGRIN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 33637/02

  In particular, they insisted that the dispute examined by the Regional Court had not concerned the applicant's "civil rights", citing the Court's conclusions in the case of Pellegrin v. France [GC] (no. 28541/95, § 65, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 14610/05

  LATVIJAS JAUNO ZEMNIEKU APVIENTBA v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 18.02.2009 - 55707/00

  Andrejeva ./. Lettland
• EGMR, 13.02.2003 - 36117/02

  GRISANKOVA et GRISANKOVS contre la LETTONIE
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 26839/05

  KENNEDY c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 9555/03

  STEFANESCU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 2745/03

  RIZHAMADZE v. GEORGIA