Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 2430/06, 1454/08, 11670/10, 12938/12   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2016,15352
EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 2430/06, 1454/08, 11670/10, 12938/12 (https://dejure.org/2016,15352)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 31.05.2016 - 2430/06, 1454/08, 11670/10, 12938/12 (https://dejure.org/2016,15352)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 31. Mai 2016 - 2430/06, 1454/08, 11670/10, 12938/12 (https://dejure.org/2016,15352)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,15352) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    GANKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - ...

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (21)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

  • EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07

    ALEKSANDR MAKAROV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 2430/06
    For that reason, the Court is unable to entertain the claims which the respondent Government raised for the first time in the proceedings before it (see, mutatis mutandis, Valeriy Kovalenko v. Russia, no. 41716/08, § 49, 29 May 2012; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, § 128, 12 March 2009; Megadat.com SRL v. Moldova, no. 21151/04, § 76, ECHR 2008; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 102, 4 October 2005; and Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, § 74, 30 January 2003).
  • EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 41716/08

    VALERIY KOVALENKO v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 2430/06
    For that reason, the Court is unable to entertain the claims which the respondent Government raised for the first time in the proceedings before it (see, mutatis mutandis, Valeriy Kovalenko v. Russia, no. 41716/08, § 49, 29 May 2012; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, § 128, 12 March 2009; Megadat.com SRL v. Moldova, no. 21151/04, § 76, ECHR 2008; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 102, 4 October 2005; and Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, § 74, 30 January 2003).
  • EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

    SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 2430/06
    For that reason, the Court is unable to entertain the claims which the respondent Government raised for the first time in the proceedings before it (see, mutatis mutandis, Valeriy Kovalenko v. Russia, no. 41716/08, § 49, 29 May 2012; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, § 128, 12 March 2009; Megadat.com SRL v. Moldova, no. 21151/04, § 76, ECHR 2008; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 102, 4 October 2005; and Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, § 74, 30 January 2003).
  • EGMR, 16.07.2002 - 56547/00

    P., C. ET S. c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 2430/06
    From the Convention standpoint, an applicant does not need to show that his absence from a hearing resulted in actual prejudice or affected the outcome of the proceedings, for such a requirement would deprive the guarantees of Article 6 of their substance (see P., C. and S. v. the United Kingdom, no. 56547/00, § 96, ECHR 2002-VI, and Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 35, Series A no. 37).
  • EGMR, 08.02.2005 - 55853/00

    MILLER v. SWEDEN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 2430/06
    Thus, leave-to-appeal proceedings and proceedings involving only questions of law, as opposed to questions of fact, may comply with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, although the appellant was not given an opportunity of being heard in person by the appeal or cassation court (see Miller v. Sweden, no. 55853/00, § 30, 8 February 2005).
  • EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12952/87

    RUIZ-MATEOS c. ESPAGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 2430/06
    However, the general concept of a fair trial, encompassing the fundamental principle that proceedings should be adversarial (see Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain, 23 June 1993, § 63, Series A no. 262), requires that the person against whom proceedings have been initiated should be informed of this fact (see Dilipak and Karakaya v. Turkey, nos. 7942/05 and 24838/05, § 77, 4 March 2014).
  • EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 28095/08

    SIWIEC v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 2430/06
    The Court should establish whether the applicant, a party to the civil proceedings, had been given a reasonable opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations made or evidence adduced by the other party and to present his case under conditions that did not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent (see Siwiec v. Poland, no. 28095/08, § 47, 3 July 2012; Larin v. Russia, no. 15034/02, §§ 35-36, 20 May 2010; Steck-Risch and Others v. Liechtenstein, no. 63151/00, § 54, 19 May 2005; Krcmár and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 35376/97, § 39, 3 March 2000; and Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274).
  • EGMR, 25.11.2003 - 57795/00

    PURSIHEIMO v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 2430/06
    An oral hearing may not be necessary due to the exceptional circumstances of the case, for example when it raises no questions of fact or law which cannot be adequately resolved on the basis of the case file and the parties" written observations (see Koottummel v. Austria, no. 49616/06, § 19, 10 December 2009; Pursiheimo v. Finland (dec.), no. 57795/00, 25 November 2003; Döry v. Sweden, no. 28394/95, § 37, 12 November 2002; and Göç v. Turkey [GC], no. 36590/97, § 47, ECHR 2002-V).
  • EGMR, 03.03.2000 - 35376/97

    KRCMAR AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 2430/06
    The Court should establish whether the applicant, a party to the civil proceedings, had been given a reasonable opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations made or evidence adduced by the other party and to present his case under conditions that did not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent (see Siwiec v. Poland, no. 28095/08, § 47, 3 July 2012; Larin v. Russia, no. 15034/02, §§ 35-36, 20 May 2010; Steck-Risch and Others v. Liechtenstein, no. 63151/00, § 54, 19 May 2005; Krcmár and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 35376/97, § 39, 3 March 2000; and Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274).
  • EGMR, 16.11.2000 - 39442/98

    SOTIRIS ET NIKOS KOUTRAS ATTEE c. GRECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 2430/06
    The Court's role in such cases is therefore confined to ascertaining whether the effects of the implementation and interpretation of procedural rules were compatible with the Convention (see Société Anonyme Sotiris and Nikos Koutras Attee v. Greece, no. 39442/98, § 17, ECHR 2000-XII).
  • EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

    ARTICO c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

    DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  • EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

    BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 08.03.2018 - C-34/17

    Donnellan - Richtlinie 2010/24/EU des Rates - Amtshilfe bei der Beitreibung von

    77 Vgl. ähnlich im Kontext des Art. 6 Abs. 1 EMRK: EGMR, 31. Mai 2016, Gankin u. a./Russland (CE:ECHR:2016:0531JUD000243006, Rn. 39): Die Prozessparteien müssen "angemessene Gelegenheit erhalten, ihre Sache wirksam zu vertreten".
  • EGMR, 09.11.2023 - 44850/18

    KIRPICHEV (KIRPICHENKO) AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    2430/06 and 3 others, §§ 25-44, 31 May 2016, as to the applicant's absence at the appeal hearings; Glukhin v. Russia, no. 11519/20, §§ 64-91, 4 July 2023, concerning unjustified processing of the applicant's personal biometric data by using highly intrusive facial recognition technology in administrative offence proceedings in order to identify, locate and arrest him; Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos.
  • EGMR, 28.03.2024 - 5800/22

    DIDENKO v. UKRAINE

    It may, therefore, be incumbent on the domestic courts to ascertain that their summonses or other documents have reached the parties sufficiently in advance and, where appropriate, record their findings in the text of the judgment (see Gankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 2430/06 et al, § 36, 31 May 2016).
  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 08.09.2016 - C-354/15

    Henderson - Justizielle Zusammenarbeit in Zivil- und Handelssachen - Verordnung

    Vgl. auch EGMR, Urteil vom 31. Mai 2016, Gankin u. a./Russland, (CE:ECHR:2016:0531JUD000243006, Rn. 28 und 39 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung).
  • EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 46232/10

    TIMAKOV AND OOO ID RUBEZH v. RUSSIA

    Given the broad scope of review accorded to appellate courts under Russian law in force at the material time (see Gankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 2430/06 and 3 others, § 40, 31 May 2016), the information before the Court does not indicate that the Regional Court could not rehear the case anew.
  • EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 50704/15

    YAKOVLYEVA v. UKRAINE

    It may, therefore, be incumbent on the domestic courts to ascertain that their summonses or other documents have reached the parties sufficiently in advance and, where appropriate, record their findings in the text of the judgment (see Gankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 2430/06 et al, § 36, 31 May 2016).
  • EGMR, 27.04.2017 - 22493/05

    SCHMIDT v. LATVIA

    It is not the Court's task to indicate the preferred ways of communicating with litigants, the domestic courts being better placed to assess the situation in the light of practical circumstances (see Gankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 2430/06, 1454/08, 11670/10 and 12938/12, § 35, 31 May 2016).
  • EGMR, 19.10.2023 - 59487/21

    BUDVEST, TOV v. UKRAINE

    It may, therefore, be incumbent on the domestic courts to ascertain that their summonses or other documents have reached the parties sufficiently in advance and, where appropriate, record their findings in the text of the judgment (see Gankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 2430/06 et al, § 36, 31 May 2016).
  • EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 1377/16

    PRODHIM VESHJE NO. 2 SH.A. v. ALBANIA

    It is not the Court's task to indicate the preferred ways of communicating with litigants, the domestic courts being better placed to assess the situation in the light of practical circumstances (see Gankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 2430/06, 1454/08, 11670/10 and 12938/12, § 35, 31 May 2016).
  • EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 10616/17

    GURBANOV v. AZERBAIJAN

    The relevant general principles have been summarised, among other authorities, in Andrejeva v. Latvia ([GC], no. 55707/00, §§ 96-102, ECHR 2009) and Gankin and Others v. Russia (nos. 2430/06 and 3 others, §§ 25-28, 31 May 2016).
  • EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 40959/19

    KHARLAMOV AND SHCHERBATENKO v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 42991/13

    BOLYUKH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 30.06.2022 - 3107/18

    TORBIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 30.06.2022 - 17658/18

    NOVOSELOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 02.06.2022 - 74476/17

    ROMANOV AND KAZANTSEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 08.12.2020 - 11275/17

    ILYUSHCHENKO c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR - 33097/18 (anhängig)

    BAJRAMI v. ALBANIA

  • EGMR - 53130/22 (anhängig)

    VIRASSAMY c. FRANCE

  • EGMR - 7386/22 (anhängig)

    INDUSTRI NDËRTIM (IN) SH.P.K. v. ALBANIA

  • EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 5261/16

    SECHINA c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR, 09.11.2021 - 61417/15

    LI c. RUSSIE

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht