Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KONKURRENTEN.NO AS v. NORWAY

  Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KONKURRENTEN.NO AS v. NORWAY

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

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 28.06.1990 - 11761/85

  Obermeier ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2019 - 47341/15

  As to whether the applicant has rebutted the strong presumption just described, the Court reiterates that it has held in respect of Article 6 of the Convention that the mere fact that an action is held inadmissible on the grounds of lacking legal interest or locus standi does not mean denial of access to a court, provided that the applicant's submissions have been the subject of a genuine examination (see, for example, Obermeier v. Austria, 28 June 1990, § 68, Series A no. 179).
• EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 10750/03

  GASPARINI c. ITALIE ET BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2019 - 47341/15

  As a consequence, Contracting States would engage their responsibility under the Convention should they transfer some of their sovereign powers to an international organisation whose internal litigation mechanisms are manifestly deficient when compared with the Convention requirements (see Gasparini v. Italy and Belgium (dec.), no. 10750/03, 12 May 2009).
• EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 45036/98

  Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi ./. Irland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2019 - 47341/15

  As to the applicant's second argument, the Court has held in cases such as Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland ([GC], no. 45036/98, §§ 152-153, ECHR 2005-VI) that the Convention does not prohibit Contracting Parties from transferring sovereign power to an international organisation in order to pursue cooperation in certain fields of activity, but that they retain Convention liability in respect of treaty commitments subsequent to the entry into force of the Convention.
• EFTA-Gerichtshof, 26.07.2016 - E-28/15

  Yankuba Jabbi v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Immigration Appeals …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2019 - 47341/15

  Secondly, and although the EFTA Court has expressed the view that the provisions of the EEA Agreement "are to be interpreted in the light of fundamental rights" in order to enhance coherency between EEA law and EU law (see, inter alia, the EFTA Court's judgment in its case E-28/15 Yankuba Jabbi [2016] para. 81), the EEA Agreement does not include the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, or any reference whatsoever to other legal instruments having the same effect, such as the Convention.

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 27.02.2020 - C-897/19

  Ruska Federacija

  NO A.S./Norwegen (Beschwerde Nr. 47341/15, Rn. 43).
• EGMR, 10.06.2021 - 45487/17

  NORWEGIAN CONFEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS (LO) AND NORWEGIAN TRANSPORT WORKERS' …

  As regards the second preliminary issue, the Court reiterates that it has held that if an organisation to which a Contracting State has transferred jurisdiction is considered to protect fundamental rights in a manner which can be considered at least "equivalent" to that for which the Convention provides, the presumption will be that a State has not departed from the requirements of the Convention when it does no more than implement legal obligations flowing from its membership of the organisation (see Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, §§ 152-153, ECHR 2005-VI, §§ 155-56 and Konkurrenten.no AS v. Norway (dec.), no. 47341/15, § 42, 5 November 2019).
• EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 69444/17

  ROTH c. SUISSE

  Quant au rapport raisonnable de proportionnalité entre les moyens employés et le but visé, une décision portant incompétence d'un tribunal n'enfreint pas le droit d'accès à un tribunal si les arguments de l'intéressé en faveur de la compétence du tribunal ont fait l'objet d'un examen réel et effectif et si le tribunal a motivé de manière adéquate les raisons sur lesquelles sa décision est fondée (dans ce sens, Obermeier c. Autriche, 28 juin 1990, § 68, série A no 179, et Konkurrenten.no AS c. Norvège (déc.), no 47341/15, §§ 46-47, 5 novembre 2019).

 
• EGMR, 13.07.2021 - 74989/11

  ALI RIZA c. SUISSE

  De surcroît, une décision portant incompétence d'un tribunal n'enfreint pas le droit d'accès à un tribunal si les arguments de l'intéressé en faveur de la compétence du tribunal ont fait l'objet d'un examen réel et effectif et si le tribunal a motivé de manière adéquate les raisons sur lesquelles sa décision est fondée (dans ce sens, Obermeier c. Autriche, 28 juin 1990, § 68, série A no 179, et Konkurrenten.no AS c. Norvège (déc.), no 47341/15, §§ 46-47, 5 novembre 2019).
• EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 44101/18

  PLAZZI c. SUISSE

  Quant au rapport raisonnable de proportionnalité entre les moyens employés et le but visé, une décision portant incompétence d'un tribunal n'enfreint pas le droit d'accès à un tribunal si les arguments de l'intéressé en faveur de la compétence du tribunal ont fait l'objet d'un examen réel et effectif et si le tribunal a motivé de manière adéquate les raisons sur lesquelles sa décision est fondée (dans ce sens, Obermeier c. Autriche, 28 juin 1990, § 68, série A no 179, et Konkurrenten.no AS c. Norvège (déc.), no 47341/15, §§ 46-47, 5 novembre 2019).
• EGMR, 24.02.2022 - 24314/13

  FISCHER v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  What is important from the perspective of the right of access to a court is that the dispute which an applicant submits for adjudication is the subject of a genuine examination (see Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98 and 8 others, § 259, 15 March 2007, and Konkurrenten.no AS v. Norway (dec.), no. 47341/15, § 46, 5 November 2019).
• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 15646/18

  BÎZDÎGA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Moreover, the mere fact that an action is held inadmissible on procedural grounds does not mean denial of access to a court, provided that the applicant's submissions have been the subject of a genuine examination and the court stated adequate and sufficient reasons for such decision (see, for example, Obermeier v. Austria, 28 June 1990, § 68, Series A no. 179, and Konkurrenten.no AS v. Norway (dec.), no. 47341/15, §§ 46-48, 5 November 2019).
• EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 10843/14

  GBM METAL EOOD AND NOREX TK OOD v. BULGARIA

  In view of the analysis above under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and the principles developed in its case-law (see, for example, Obermeier v. Austria, 28 June 1990, § 68, Series A no. 179, and Konkurrenten.no AS v. Norway (dec.), no. 47341/15, §§ 46-48, 5 November 2019), the Court finds that the national courts genuinely examined the admissibility of the application for judicial review and gave adequate reasons.