Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NERSESYAN v. ARMENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 29.05.2001 - 63716/00

  SAWONIUK contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 15371/07

  In so far as the applicant alleges that the Court of Cassation's decision of 15 January 2007 was not sufficiently reasoned, the Court has previously found in respect of leave-to-appeal proceedings that, where a supreme court refuses to accept a case on the basis that the legal grounds for such a case are not made out, very limited reasoning may satisfy the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see Nerva and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42295/98, 11 July 2000; Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI; Glender v. Sweden (dec.), no. 28070/03, 6 September 2005; Stepenska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 24079/02, 12 June 2006; Jaczkó v. Hungary, no. 40109/03, § 29, 18 July 2006; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 106, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts); Kukkonen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 47628/06, § 24, 13 January 2009; and Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009).
• EGMR, 28.01.2003 - 34763/02

  BURG et AUTRES contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 15371/07

  As regards other preliminary procedures for the examination and admission of appeals on points of law, the Court has similarly acknowledged that an appellate court is not required to give more detailed reasoning when it simply applies a specific legal provision to dismiss an appeal on points of law as having no prospects of success, without further explanation (see Burg and Others v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, ECHR 2003-II; and Gorou v. Greece (no. 2) [GC], no. 12686/03, § 41, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 01.09.2009 - 38308/05

  WNUK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 15371/07

  In so far as the applicant alleges that the Court of Cassation's decision of 15 January 2007 was not sufficiently reasoned, the Court has previously found in respect of leave-to-appeal proceedings that, where a supreme court refuses to accept a case on the basis that the legal grounds for such a case are not made out, very limited reasoning may satisfy the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see Nerva and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42295/98, 11 July 2000; Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI; Glender v. Sweden (dec.), no. 28070/03, 6 September 2005; Stepenska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 24079/02, 12 June 2006; Jaczkó v. Hungary, no. 40109/03, § 29, 18 July 2006; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 106, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts); Kukkonen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 47628/06, § 24, 13 January 2009; and Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009).

 
• EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 28070/03

  GLENDER v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 15371/07

  In so far as the applicant alleges that the Court of Cassation's decision of 15 January 2007 was not sufficiently reasoned, the Court has previously found in respect of leave-to-appeal proceedings that, where a supreme court refuses to accept a case on the basis that the legal grounds for such a case are not made out, very limited reasoning may satisfy the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see Nerva and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42295/98, 11 July 2000; Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI; Glender v. Sweden (dec.), no. 28070/03, 6 September 2005; Stepenska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 24079/02, 12 June 2006; Jaczkó v. Hungary, no. 40109/03, § 29, 18 July 2006; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 106, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts); Kukkonen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 47628/06, § 24, 13 January 2009; and Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009).
• EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 40109/03

  JACZKO v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 15371/07

  In so far as the applicant alleges that the Court of Cassation's decision of 15 January 2007 was not sufficiently reasoned, the Court has previously found in respect of leave-to-appeal proceedings that, where a supreme court refuses to accept a case on the basis that the legal grounds for such a case are not made out, very limited reasoning may satisfy the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see Nerva and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42295/98, 11 July 2000; Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI; Glender v. Sweden (dec.), no. 28070/03, 6 September 2005; Stepenska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 24079/02, 12 June 2006; Jaczkó v. Hungary, no. 40109/03, § 29, 18 July 2006; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 106, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts); Kukkonen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 47628/06, § 24, 13 January 2009; and Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009).
• EKMR, 16.07.1981 - 8769/79

  X. c. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 15371/07

  In some cases even a simple reference to the provisions authorising such procedures may be sufficient (see X. v. Germany, no. 8769/79, Commission decision of 16 July 1981, Decisions and Reports 25, p. 240, and Müller-Eberstein v. Germany, no. 29753/96, Commission decision 27 November 1996, unreported).
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 47628/06

  KUKKONEN v. FINLAND (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 15371/07

  In so far as the applicant alleges that the Court of Cassation's decision of 15 January 2007 was not sufficiently reasoned, the Court has previously found in respect of leave-to-appeal proceedings that, where a supreme court refuses to accept a case on the basis that the legal grounds for such a case are not made out, very limited reasoning may satisfy the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see Nerva and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42295/98, 11 July 2000; Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI; Glender v. Sweden (dec.), no. 28070/03, 6 September 2005; Stepenska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 24079/02, 12 June 2006; Jaczkó v. Hungary, no. 40109/03, § 29, 18 July 2006; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 106, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts); Kukkonen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 47628/06, § 24, 13 January 2009; and Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009).
• EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 29753/96

  MÜLLER-EBERSTEIN v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 15371/07

  In some cases even a simple reference to the provisions authorising such procedures may be sufficient (see X. v. Germany, no. 8769/79, Commission decision of 16 July 1981, Decisions and Reports 25, p. 240, and Müller-Eberstein v. Germany, no. 29753/96, Commission decision 27 November 1996, unreported).
• EGMR, 12.06.2006 - 24079/02

  STEPENSKA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 15371/07

  In so far as the applicant alleges that the Court of Cassation's decision of 15 January 2007 was not sufficiently reasoned, the Court has previously found in respect of leave-to-appeal proceedings that, where a supreme court refuses to accept a case on the basis that the legal grounds for such a case are not made out, very limited reasoning may satisfy the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see Nerva and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42295/98, 11 July 2000; Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI; Glender v. Sweden (dec.), no. 28070/03, 6 September 2005; Stepenska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 24079/02, 12 June 2006; Jaczkó v. Hungary, no. 40109/03, § 29, 18 July 2006; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 106, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts); Kukkonen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 47628/06, § 24, 13 January 2009; and Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009).

• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 21218/09

  PRADO BUGALLO c. ESPAGNE

  It may be sufficient for a higher court to dismiss an appeal by referring solely to the statutory provisions that provide for such procedure, if the questions raised by the appeal are not particularly significant or do not offer a sufficient prospect of success (see, among many other authorities, Teuschler v. Germany (dec.), no. 47636/99, 4 October 2001; Burg and Others v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, ECHR 2003-II; and Nersesyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 15371/07, 19 January 2010).
• EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08

  TORTLADZE v. GEORGIA

  Nor does the limited reasoning given by the Supreme Court in its decision of 18 February 2008 for the rejection of the applicant's appeal raise an arguable issue (see, among many other cases, Nersesyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 15371/07, §§ 23-24, 19 January 2010; Kukkonen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 47628/06, § 24, 13 January 2009; Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 106, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts), and Jaczkó v. Hungary, no. 40109/03, § 29, 18 July 2006).
• EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 47450/11

  VALCHEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  In addition, in many cases the former Commission and the Court have reviewed various aspects of permission-to-appeal or similar proceedings under that provision (see Webb v. the United Kingdom, no. 33186/96, Commission decision of 2 July 1997, unreported; ITC (Isle of Man), P.S.W.H. and A.G.S. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45619/99, 29 February 2000; Nerva and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42295/98, 11 July 2000; Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI; Walczak v. Poland (dec.), no. 77395/01, 7 May 2002; Stepinska v. France, no. 1814/02, §§ 15-19, 15 June 2004; Guz v. Poland (dec.), no. 29293/02, 19 May 2005; Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, §§ 53-55, ECHR 2006-VI; Stepenska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 24079/02, 12 June 2006; Jaczkó v. Hungary, no. 40109/03, § 29, 18 July 2006; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 106, 18 December 2007; Mrúz v. Hungary, no. 3261/05, § 20, 14 October 2008; Lajos Németh v. Hungary, no. 3840/05, § 20, 21 October 2008; Makuszewski v. Poland, no. 35556/05, § 53, 13 January 2009; Grori v. Albania, no. 25336/04, § 199, 7 July 2009; Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009; Jakupi v. Albania (dec.), no. 11186/03, 1 December 2009; Nersesyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 15371/07, §§ 23-25, 19 January 2010; Bachowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 32463/06, 2 November 2010; and Dunn v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62793/10, §§ 27-40, 23 October 2012).
• EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 19312/07

  TCHAGHIASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  However, the Court, in the light of its extensive similar case-law on the matter, considers that the mere fact that the applicant's appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible on the ground that it lacked significant pecuniary and/or legal interest cannot be considered, in a situation where he had had the benefit of fully adversarial proceedings on the merits before the first instance and appellate courts, either as an unreasonable limitation of the right to have access to court or, more generally, as a lack of due process under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (compare, for instance, with Nersesyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 15371/07, §§ 21-25, 19 January 2010; Venema and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 35731/97, 29 January 2002; and also Berger v. France, no. 48221/99, § 30-39, ECHR 2002-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 61005/09

  VARELA GEIS c. ESPAGNE

  La Cour rappelle qu'il n'est pas contraire à la Convention qu'une juridiction supérieure rejette un recours en se référant seulement aux dispositions légales prévoyant cette procédure, si les questions soulevées par le recours ne revêtent pas une importance particulière ou n'offre pas de chance suffisante de succès (voir Simon c. Allemagne (déc.), no 33681/96, 6 juillet 1999, Teuschler c. Allemagne (déc.), no47636/99, 4 octobre 2001, et Zmalinski c. Pologne (déc.), no 52039/99, 16 octobre 2001, Vogl c. Allemagne (déc.), no 65863/01, 5 décembre 2002, Burg et autres c. France (déc.), no 34763/02, CEDH 2003-I et Nersesyan c. Arménie (déc.), no 15371/07, 19 janvier 2010).