Rechtsprechung
| EKMR, 20.05.1998 - 29818/96 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1998,32389) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
G.D. AND M. v. GERMANY
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 15450/89
CASADO COCA v. SPAIN
Auszug aus EKMR, 20.05.1998 - 29818/96
Insofar as the applicants complain that the Regional Court and the Court of Appeal did not correctly apply the legal provisions on intentional deception, based their judgments on an erroneous appreciation of the facts and evidence and failed to discuss their submissions in detail, the Commission recalls that it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to resolve problems of interpretation of domestic legislation (see, mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court HR, Casado Coca v. Spain judgment of 24 February 1994, Series A no. 285-A, p. 18, para. 43; Bulut v. Austria judgment of 22 February 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II, pp. 356, 357, para. 29). - EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90
VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EKMR, 20.05.1998 - 29818/96
Moreover, as general rule, the assessment of the facts and the taking of evidence and its evaluation is a matter which necessarily comes within the appreciation of the national courts and cannot be reviewed by the Commission unless there is an indication that the judges have drawn grossly unfair or arbitrary conclusions from the facts before them (see No. 7987/77, Dec. 13.12.79, D.R. 18, p. 31; Eur. Court HR Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands judgment of 19 April 1994, Series A no. 288, p. 19, para. 60).