Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MONT BLANC TRADING LTD AND ANTARES TITANIUM TRADING LTD v. UKRAINE

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MONT BLANC TRADING LTD AND ANTARES TITANIUM TRADING LTD v. UKRAINE

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

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

• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 11161/08

  The Court also reiterates that, according to its established case-law concerning the proper administration of justice, judgments of courts and tribunals should adequately state the reasons on which they are based (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 26, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 11161/08

  The Court reiterates that it is not for it to deal with alleged errors of law or fact committed by the national courts unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms that are protected by the Convention - for instance where it can, exceptionally, be said that they are constitutive of "unfairness" incompatible with Article 6 of the Convention (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 61, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 1398/03

  MARKOVIC ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 11161/08

  This also applies where domestic law refers to rules of general international law or international agreements (see Markovic and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 1398/03, § 108, ECHR 2006-XIV, with references therein).

 
• EGMR, 07.06.2005 - 71186/01

  FUKLEV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 11161/08

  It furthermore reiterates that it is the State's responsibility to make use of all available legal means at its disposal in order to enforce a final court decision, even in cases involving litigation between private parties (see, mutatis mutandis, Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 71186/01, §§ 89-91, 7 June 2005, and Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, no. 48553/99, § 96, ECHR 2002-VII).
• EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 61811/00

  MILATOVÁ AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 11161/08

  The Court considers that it cannot speculate as to what the outcome of the proceedings would have been if they had been in conformity with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Milatová and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 61811/00, § 70, ECHR 2005-V).
• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 18116/15

  PETROVIC AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 11161/08

  If, however, a submission would, if accepted, be decisive for the outcome of the case, it may require a specific and express reply by the court in its judgment (see, for instance, Petrovic and Others v. Montenegro, no. 18116/15, § 41, 17 July 2018).
• EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 63566/00

  PRONINA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 11161/08

  The principle of fairness enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention would be disturbed where domestic courts ignore a specific, pertinent and important point made by an applicant (see, for instance, Pronina v. Ukraine, no. 63566/00, § 25, 18 July 2006, and Mala v. Ukraine, no. 4436/07, § 48, 3 July 2014).
• EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 4436/07

  MALA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 11161/08

  The principle of fairness enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention would be disturbed where domestic courts ignore a specific, pertinent and important point made by an applicant (see, for instance, Pronina v. Ukraine, no. 63566/00, § 25, 18 July 2006, and Mala v. Ukraine, no. 4436/07, § 48, 3 July 2014).

• EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 32997/15

  BULIC v. CROATIA

  Merits 14. The central question in the present case is whether the Croatian authorities' conclusion that the harm suffered by the applicant during military combat in Bosnia and Herzegovina amounted to "injuries" and not "wounding" as required by the Agreement between the two countries in order to be awarded a disability pension in Croatia (see paragraph 4 above), could be considered as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see López Ribalda and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 1874/13 and 8567/13, § 149, 17 October 2019; De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 170, 23 February 2017, and Mont Blanc Trading Ltd and Antares Titanium Trading Ltd v. Ukraine, no. 11161/08, § 81, 14 January 2021).