Rechtsprechung
| EKMR, 21.06.2005 - 50664/99 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,46486) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 21.06.2005 - 50664/99
- EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 50664/99
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85
H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EKMR, 21.06.2005 - 50664/99
A waiver can be done explicitly or tacitly, in the latter case for example by refraining from submitting or maintaining a request for a hearing (see, among other authorities, Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 171-A, p. 20, § 66, and Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, pp. 19-20, § 58). - EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73
AIREY v. IRELAND
Auszug aus EKMR, 21.06.2005 - 50664/99
This is particularly so of the right of access to the courts in view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair hearing (see Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, pp. 12-14, § 24). - EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12129/86
HENNINGS v. GERMANY
Auszug aus EKMR, 21.06.2005 - 50664/99
In general, and in particular due to the risk of such a petition being filed, it could be expected of the applicant company to make the necessary arrangements for its mail to be checked and for the director to be notified of any important matter during his time abroad (see, mutatis mutandis, Hennings v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-A, p. 11, § 26).
- EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89
SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EKMR, 21.06.2005 - 50664/99
A waiver can be done explicitly or tacitly, in the latter case for example by refraining from submitting or maintaining a request for a hearing (see, among other authorities, Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 171-A, p. 20, § 66, and Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, pp. 19-20, § 58). - EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75
DEWEER c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EKMR, 21.06.2005 - 50664/99
Furthermore, they will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if they do not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see, among other authorities, Deweer v. Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, pp. 24-26, §§ 48-49, Aït-Mouhoub v. France, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, p. 3227, § 52, and the above-mentioned Janosevic v. Sweden judgment, p. 31, § 80). - EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 12547/86
BENDENOUN c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EKMR, 21.06.2005 - 50664/99
Such a system is not incompatible with Article 6 § 1 so long as the taxpayer can bring any such decision affecting him before a judicial body that has full jurisdiction, including the power to quash in all respects, on questions of fact and law, the challenged decision (see Bendenoun v. France, judgment of 24 February 1994, Series A no. 284, pp. 19-20, § 46, Umlauft v. Austria, judgment of 23 October 1995, Series A no. 328-B, pp. 39-40, §§ 37-39, and the above-mentioned Janosevic v. Sweden judgment, p. 31, § 81).