Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PAROISSE GRÉCO-CATHOLIQUE LUPENI ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  Non-violation de l'article 6 - Droit à un procès équitable (Article 6 - Procédure civile;Article 6-1 - Accès à un tribunal);Violation de l'article 6 - Droit à un procès équitable (Article 6 - Procédure civile;Article 6-1 - Procès équitable);Violation de ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LUPENI GREEK CATHOLIC PARISH AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LUPENI GREEK CATHOLIC PARISH AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PAROISSE GRECO-CATHOLIQUE LUPENI ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [FRA]

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)

  Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania

  [02.03.2016]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 19.05.2015 - 76943/11
• EGMR, 29.11.2016 - 76943/11
• EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 76943/11

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (17)

• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75529/01

  Verschleppter Prozess - Mann prozessiert seit 16 Jahren um Entschädigung nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2016 - 76943/11

  The reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and having regard to the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, in particular the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 128, ECHR 2006-VII).
• EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 43546/02

  E.B. v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2016 - 76943/11

  65731/01 and 65900/01, §§ 39-40, ECHR 2005-X; E.B. v. France [GC], no. 43546/02, §§ 47-48, 22 January 2008; and Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2016 - 76943/11

  The right of access to the courts is not absolute but may be subject to limitations; these are permitted by implication since the right of access by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and in place according to the needs and resources of the community and of individuals (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 230, ECHR 2012).

 
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2016 - 76943/11

  Lastly, the Court also notes that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly made by a national court, unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, inter alia, García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I, and Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 82, ECHR 2004-I).
• EGMR, 28.11.1984 - 8777/79

  RASMUSSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2016 - 76943/11

  It follows that the facts complained of by the applicants come within the ambit of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, to that effect, Rasmussen v. Denmark, 28 November 1984, § 32, Series A no. 87).
• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99

  PEREZ c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2016 - 76943/11

  Lastly, the Court also notes that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly made by a national court, unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, inter alia, García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I, and Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 82, ECHR 2004-I).
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2016 - 76943/11

  According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 24846/94

  ZIELINSKI ET PRADAL & GONZALEZ ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2016 - 76943/11

  The Court has already stressed on many occasions that the role of a supreme court is precisely to resolve such conflicts (see Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and Others v. France [GC], nos. 24846/94 and 34165/96 to 34173/96, § 59, ECHR 1999-VII, and Ferreira Santos Pardal, cited above, § 47).
• EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 44962/98

  YVON c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2016 - 76943/11

  There is accordingly no ground for making any award under this head (see, mutatis mutandis, Hayati Çelebi and Others, cited above, § 71, and Yvon v. France, no. 44962/98, § 44, ECHR 2003-V).
• EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

  ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2016 - 76943/11

  Thus, Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have a claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court (see Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 116; see also Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 91, ECHR 2001-V, and Cudak v. Lithuania [GC], no. 15869/02, § 54, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98

  Enteignung eines Gemäldes in Tschechien auf Grund der Benes-Dekrete - …
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 1398/03

  MARKOVIC ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 01.03.2002 - 48778/99

  KUTIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 23805/94

  BELLET c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 69829/01

  NUNES DIAS contre le PORTUGAL

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 26.10.2023 - C-554/21

  HANN-INVEST - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Art. 19 Abs. 1 Unterabs. 2 EUV - …

  34 EGMR, 29. November 2016, Griechisch-katholische Kirchengemeinde Lupeni u. a./Rumänien (CE:ECHR:2016:1129JUD007694311, §§ 116 und 129).

  35 EGMR, 29. November 2016, Griechisch-katholische Kirchengemeinde Lupeni u. a./Rumänien (CE:ECHR:2016:1129JUD007694311, § 123).

  37 EGMR, 1. Juli 2010, Vusic/Kroatien (CE:ECHR:2010:0701JUD004810107), EGMR, 29. November 2016, Griechisch-katholische Kirchengemeinde Lupeni u. a./Rumänien (CE:ECHR:2016:1129JUD007694311), sowie EGMR, 23. Mai 2019, Sine Tsaggarakis A.E.E./Griechenland (CE:ECHR:2019:0523JUD001725713).

  69 EGMR, 18. Dezember 2008, Unédic/Frankreich (CE:ECHR:2008:1218JUD002015304, § 74), EGMR, 29. November 2016, Griechisch-katholische Kirchengemeinde Lupeni u. a./Rumänien (CE:ECHR:2016:1129JUD007694311, § 116), sowie EGMR, 20. Oktober 2011, Nejdet Sahin und Perihan Sahin (CE:ECHR:2011:1020JUD001327905, § 58).