Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  COVENTRY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  COVENTRY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

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

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 6016/16

  However, having regard to the approach adopted by the Court towards general measures in cases such as Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 48876/08, ECHR 2013 (extracts)), they noted that the system as a whole was a rational and coherent scheme for providing access to justice to those to whom it would probably otherwise have been denied, it had been made following wide consultation, and it fell within the area of discretionary judgment afforded to legislators and rule-makers.

  The applicant therefore argued that there was no proper basis for distinguishing MGN Limited from the case at hand and, if this was correct, the Supreme Court had been wrong to rely on the approach to general measures taken by the Grand Chamber in Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 48876/08, ECHR 2013 (extracts)), since the Court had rejected a similar argument in MGN Limited.

• EGMR, 16.03.2021 - 21392/08

  KARAHASANOGLU v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 6016/16

  In other cases, however, the Court has preferred to deal with complaints concerning the imposition of costs orders within the framework of its assessment as to whether the proceedings as a whole complied with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Stankiewicz, cited above, § 60 and Karahasanoglu v. Turkey, nos. 21392/08 and 2 others, § 135, 16 March 2021).
• EGMR, 06.04.2006 - 46917/99

  STANKIEWICZ c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 6016/16

  Unlike claimants, defendants generally have no choice regarding their initial involvement in litigation and thus the rationale for finding that an award of costs at the end of proceedings could act as a restriction on their right of access to court cannot apply to them with equal force (see, for example, Stankiewicz v. Poland, no. 46917/99, ECHR 2006 VI, in which the Court considered that while a prosecutor's privileged position with respect to the costs of civil proceedings was relevant to its overall assessment of the fairness of those proceedings, the defendants" right of access to court was not concerned).

 
• EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 68490/01

  STANKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 6016/16

  It has acknowledged that the imposition of a considerable financial burden on a claimant after the conclusion of proceedings could act as a restriction on the right of access to a court (see Stankov v. Bulgaria, no. 68490/01, § 54, 12 July 2007, Klauz v. Croatia, no. 28963/10, § 77, 18 July 2013 and Dragan Kovacevic v. Croatia, no. 49281/15, § 70, 12 May 2022).
• EGMR, 12.05.2022 - 49281/15

  DRAGAN KOVACEVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 6016/16

  It has acknowledged that the imposition of a considerable financial burden on a claimant after the conclusion of proceedings could act as a restriction on the right of access to a court (see Stankov v. Bulgaria, no. 68490/01, § 54, 12 July 2007, Klauz v. Croatia, no. 28963/10, § 77, 18 July 2013 and Dragan Kovacevic v. Croatia, no. 49281/15, § 70, 12 May 2022).
• EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 48045/15

  BENGHEZAL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 6016/16

  In Benghezal v. France (no. 48045/15, 24 March 2022) the Court held that an order that the applicant pay EUR 2, 000 to a civil party for the costs incurred defending his unsuccessful appeal before the Court of Cassation disproportionately interfered with his right of access to court.
• EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 74778/14

  TARATUKHIN c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 6016/16

  This is because such a financial burden could discourage potential litigants from bringing claims before the courts (see Klauz, cited above, 81; see also Taratukhin v. Russia (dec.), no. 74778/14, § 34, 15 September 2020).