Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KANDARAKIS v. GREECE

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KANDARAKIS v. GREECE and 2 other applications

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

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 12750/87

  PHILIS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 48345/12

  Following the Court's judgment in Philis v. Greece (no. 1), 27 August 1991, Series A no. 209), the Special Supreme Court (Î?νÏ?Ï?αÏ?ο Î?ιδικÏ? Î?ικαÏ?Ï?ήÏ�ιο) issued judgment no. 26/1993, which ruled that the Technical Chamber of Greece was not the only interested party entitled to bring proceedings seeking the payment of fees owed to a certain engineer.

  Merits The parties" arguments 42. The applicants, referring to the Court's case-law (Philis v. Greece (no. 1) (27 August 1991, Series A no. 209)) and to domestic case-law (see paragraph 30 above), argued that there was rich jurisprudence clarifying that a person who had provided services was entitled to pursue a direct action, provided that he or she requested that the amount be deposited with the relevant bar association.

• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 48345/12

  However, 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, which regulation 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, 19.04.2018 - 11946/11

  DIMITRAS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 48345/12

  In order to assess the proportionality on the applicants" restriction of access to a court, the Court will have regard to two criteria, namely a) whether that restriction was foreseeable based on the domestic legal framework and the deriving case-law (see, among other authorities, Lupa?? and Others v. Romania, nos. 1434/02 and 2 others, § 69, ECHR 2006 XV (extracts)), b) whether the applicants had other legal remedies to assert their claims (see, mutatis mutandis, Dimitras v. Greece, no. 11946/11, § 41, 19 April 2018).

 
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 23805/94

  BELLET c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 48345/12

  The right of access to a court must be "practical and effective", not theoretical or illusory (see, to that effect, Bellet v. France, 4 December 1995, § 36, Series A no. 333-B).
• EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 69829/01

  NUNES DIAS contre le PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 48345/12

  2672/03 and 69829/01, ECHR 2003-IV, and Bellet, cited above, § 36).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98

  Enteignung eines Gemäldes in Tschechien auf Grund der Benes-Dekrete - …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 48345/12

  This observation is particularly true in respect of the guarantees provided by Article 6, in view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial (see Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 45, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 01.03.2002 - 48778/99

  KUTIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 48345/12

  Equally, the right of access to a court includes not only the right to institute proceedings but also the right to obtain a "determination" of the dispute by a court (see, for example, Falie v. Romania, no. 23257/04, §§ 22 and 24, 19 May 2015, and Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 25, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

  ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 48345/12

  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; Cudak v. Lithuania [GC], no. 15869/02, § 54, ECHR 2010 and Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, § 76, 5 April 2018).
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 1398/03

  MARKOVIC ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 48345/12

  Article 6 § 1 may therefore be relied on by anyone who considers that an interference with the exercise of one of his or her (civil) rights is unlawful and complains that he or she has not had the possibility of submitting that claim to a tribunal meeting the requirements of Article 6 § 1. Where there is a serious and genuine dispute as to the lawfulness of such an interference, going either to the very existence or the scope of the asserted civil right, Article 6 § 1 entitles the individual concerned "to have this question of domestic law determined by a tribunal" (see Z and Others, cited above, § 92; see also Markovic and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 1398/03, § 98, ECHR 2006-XIV, and Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 85, 29 November 2016).

• EGMR, 01.06.2023 - 24827/14

  FU QUAN, S.R.O. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  En premier lieu, même dans les États dont les juridictions civiles peuvent, voire doivent examiner d'office les litiges dont elles sont saisies (c'est-à-dire faire application du principe jura novit curia), les requérants ne sont pas dispensés de leur obligation de soulever devant elles les griefs dont ils pourraient entendre saisir la Cour par la suite (voir, entre autres, Kandarakis c. Grèce, nos 48345/12 et 2 autres, § 77, 11 juin 2020), étant entendu que pour porter une appréciation sur le respect de la règle de l'épuisement des voies de recours internes, la Cour doit tenir compte non seulement des faits mais aussi des arguments juridiques invoqués devant les autorités internes (voir Radomilja et autres, précité, § 117, et les références qui s'y trouvent citées).
• EGMR, 30.08.2022 - 46564/15

  KORPORATIVNA TARGOVSKA BANKA AD v. BULGARIA

  48345/12 and 2 others, § 46, 11 June 2020).