Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 37242/14 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,15349) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
TENCE v. SLOVENIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
TENCE v. SLOVENIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 12 Art. 1 MRK
[ENG]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 37242/14
- EGMR, 22.11.2017 - 37242/14
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 25782/11
KARDOS v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 37242/14
Moreover, while the Slovenian legislation does not explicitly provide for reopening of civil proceedings following a judgment by the Court finding a violation of the Convention (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 27, ECHR 2015), the Court has already stated that the most appropriate form of redress in cases where it finds that an applicant has not had access to court in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention would be for the legislature to provide for the possibility of reopening the proceedings and re-examining the case in keeping with all the requirements of a fair hearing (see, mutatis mutandis, Kardos v. Croatia, no. 25782/11, § 67, 26 April 2016; and Perak v. Slovenia, no. 37903/09, § 50, 1 March 2016). - EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84
SCHENK c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 37242/14
Notwithstanding the fact that it is primarily the role of the competent national authorities to decide upon the admissibility and relevance of evidence (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, § 46, Series A no. 140, and Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, § 91, Series A no. 22), the Court considers that the above considerations, coupled with the fact that the technical issue resulting in the incomplete delivery of the document in question to the Local Court was not attributable to the applicant but to the Local Court, render the domestic courts" approach of placing the entire burden of proof on the applicant overly rigid. - EGMR, 11.01.2001 - 38460/97
PLATAKOU v. GREECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 37242/14
The Court is of the view that a party should bear the consequences of an appeal that arrives after the time-limit, where the errors are attributable to that party (see Pérez de Rada Cavanilles v. Spain, cited above, § 47, and Platakou v. Greece, no. 38460/97, § 39, ECHR 2001-I; contrast Rodriguez Valin v. Spain, no. 47792/99, § 28, 11 October 2001). - EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 37903/09
PERAK v. SLOVENIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 37242/14
Moreover, while the Slovenian legislation does not explicitly provide for reopening of civil proceedings following a judgment by the Court finding a violation of the Convention (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 27, ECHR 2015), the Court has already stated that the most appropriate form of redress in cases where it finds that an applicant has not had access to court in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention would be for the legislature to provide for the possibility of reopening the proceedings and re-examining the case in keeping with all the requirements of a fair hearing (see, mutatis mutandis, Kardos v. Croatia, no. 25782/11, § 67, 26 April 2016; and Perak v. Slovenia, no. 37903/09, § 50, 1 March 2016). - EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08
BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 37242/14
Moreover, while the Slovenian legislation does not explicitly provide for reopening of civil proceedings following a judgment by the Court finding a violation of the Convention (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 27, ECHR 2015), the Court has already stated that the most appropriate form of redress in cases where it finds that an applicant has not had access to court in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention would be for the legislature to provide for the possibility of reopening the proceedings and re-examining the case in keeping with all the requirements of a fair hearing (see, mutatis mutandis, Kardos v. Croatia, no. 25782/11, § 67, 26 April 2016; and Perak v. Slovenia, no. 37903/09, § 50, 1 March 2016).