Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LARIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 15034/02
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 15034/02

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 69889/01

  GROSHEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 15034/02

  In such circumstances the Court finds that the applicant was placed at a significant disadvantage vis-à-vis the opposing party (see Groshev v. Russia, no. 69889/01, § 29, 20 October 2005).
• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 15034/02

  Thus the questions of personal presence, the form of the proceedings (oral or written), legal representation, etc. should be analysed in the broader context of the "fair trial" guarantee of Article 6. The Court should verify whether the applicant - 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 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, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 15034/02

  Legal assistance in civil cases is not mandatory either, although, in certain circumstances, Article 6 § 1 may sometimes compel the State to provide for the assistance of a lawyer when such assistance proves indispensable for an effective access to court (see Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 26, Series A no. 32, p. 14-16,).

• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 15034/02

  Article 6 § 1 leaves to the State a free choice of the means to be used in guaranteeing litigants these rights (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, §§ 59-60, ECHR 2005-II).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 15034/02

  A hearing may not be necessary in the particular 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, mutatis mutandis, Fredin v. Sweden (no. 2), 23 February 1994, §§ 21-22, Series A no. 283-A, and Fischer v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 44, Series A no. 312).
• EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 18928/91

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 15034/02

  A hearing may not be necessary in the particular 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, mutatis mutandis, Fredin v. Sweden (no. 2), 23 February 1994, §§ 21-22, Series A no. 283-A, and Fischer v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 44, Series A no. 312).
• EGMR, 03.03.2000 - 35376/97

  KRCMAR AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 15034/02

  Thus the questions of personal presence, the form of the proceedings (oral or written), legal representation, etc. should be analysed in the broader context of the "fair trial" guarantee of Article 6. The Court should verify whether the applicant - 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 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, 23.10.2008 - 13470/02

  KHUZHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 15034/02

  The Court has previously found a violation of the right to a "public and fair hearing" in a case where a Russian court, after having refused leave to appear to the imprisoned applicants who had wished to make oral submissions on their defamation claim, failed to consider other legal possibilities for securing their effective participation in the proceedings (see Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, §§ 53 et seq., 23 October 2008).
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03

  SHILBERGS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 15034/02

  In the more recent case of Shilbergs v. Russia (no. 20075/03, 17 December 2009, not yet final), which also concerned a civil action brought by a convicted criminal in respect of the conditions of his detention, the Court held as follows: "Given the obvious difficulties involved in transporting convicted persons from one location to another, the Court can, in principle, accept that in cases where the claim is not based on the plaintiff's personal experiences... representation of the detainee by an advocate would not be in breach of the principle of equality of arms" (§ 106).
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 78145/01

  KOVALEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 15034/02

  Despite the fact that the applicant in that case was represented by his wife, the Court considered it relevant that his claim had been largely based on his personal experience and that his submissions would therefore have been "an important part of the plaintiff's presentation of the case and virtually the only way to ensure adversarial proceedings" (see Kovalev v. Russia, no. 78145/01, § 37, 10 May 2007).
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 66941/01

  ZAGORODNIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 23243/03

  SOKUR v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 28370/05

  [ENG]

  The Court has previously found violations of Article 6 of the Convention in cases where Russian courts, after having refused leave to appear to detainees who had wished to make oral submissions on civil claims, failed to consider other legal avenues for the securing of their effective participation in the proceedings (see Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, §§ 53 et seq., 23 October 2008; see also Mokhov v. Russia, no. 28245/04, §§ 45-51, 4 March 2010; and Larin v. Russia, no. 15034/02, § 35 et seq., 20 May 2010).
• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 50098/07

  [ENG]

  Relying on the Court's judgment in the case of Larin v. Russia (no. 15034/02, § 62, 20 May 2010), the Government considered that the amount of 500 euros (EUR) was sufficient compensation for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 56251/12

  SUKHANOV c. RUSSIE

  Se référant aux arrêts Larin c. Russie (no 15034/02, § 62, 20 mai 2010 - dans cette affaire, la Cour a alloué 500 EUR à la partie requérante au titre du dommage moral) et Rozhin c. Russie (no 50098/07, § 39, 6 décembre 2011 - dans cette affaire, la Cour a alloué 1 000 EUR à la partie requérante), le Gouvernement estime que la somme demandée excessive et déraisonnable et qu'elle ne correspond pas à la jurisprudence de la Cour.