Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAYER v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 14 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EKMR, 05.04.1994 - 21283/93

  TYLER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 04.09.1996 - 26632/95

  In particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention (cf. No. 21283/93, Dec. 5.4.94, D.R. 77 p. 81; Eur. Court H.R., Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands judgment of 19 April 1994, Series A no. 288, p. 20, para. 61; Klaas v. Germany judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 269, p. 17, para. 29).
• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EKMR, 04.09.1996 - 26632/95

  The Commission recalls that the principle of equality of arms is only one feature of a wider concept of a fair trial and implies that each party shall have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case to the court under conditions which do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-a-vis his opponent (see, Eur. Court HR, Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands judgment of 27 October 1993, Series A no. 274, p. 19, para. 33; Stran Greek Refineries S.A. and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, para. 46).
• EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

  VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EKMR, 04.09.1996 - 26632/95

  In particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention (cf. No. 21283/93, Dec. 5.4.94, D.R. 77 p. 81; Eur. Court H.R., Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands judgment of 19 April 1994, Series A no. 288, p. 20, para. 61; Klaas v. Germany judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 269, p. 17, para. 29).

 
• EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88

  KARLHEINZ SCHMIDT v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EKMR, 04.09.1996 - 26632/95

  The Commission recalls that for the purpose Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention a difference in treatment is discriminatory only if it has no objective and reasonable justification (Eur. Court HR, Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany judgment of 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B, p. 32, para. 24).
• EKMR, 05.10.1988 - 11941/86

  G. contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 04.09.1996 - 26632/95

  A provision laying down, in the context of a civil dispute, a presumption of responsibility may therefore be regarded as infringing the fairness of a trial only if and insofar as it can result in an imbalance between the parties (No. 11941/86, Dec. 5.10.88, D.R. 57 p. 100).
• EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13191/87

  PHAM HOANG c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 04.09.1996 - 26632/95

  In particular a presumption so established by law must not be an irrebuttable one (Eur. Court HR, Pham Hoang v. France judgment of 25 September 1992, Series A no. 243, pp. 21-22, paras. 33-34).
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 04.09.1996 - 26632/95

  In particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention (cf. No. 21283/93, Dec. 5.4.94, D.R. 77 p. 81; Eur. Court H.R., Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands judgment of 19 April 1994, Series A no. 288, p. 20, para. 61; Klaas v. Germany judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 269, p. 17, para. 29).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 04.09.1996 - 26632/95

  The Commission recalls that the principle of equality of arms is only one feature of a wider concept of a fair trial and implies that each party shall have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case to the court under conditions which do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-a-vis his opponent (see, Eur. Court HR, Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands judgment of 27 October 1993, Series A no. 274, p. 19, para. 33; Stran Greek Refineries S.A. and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, para. 46).