Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BORISENKO AND YEREVANYAN BAZALT LTD v. ARMENIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 18297/08

  Nor is it the function of this Court to rule in abstracto on the compatibility with the Convention of certain legal rules (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 39, Series A no. 18).
• EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96

  COEME AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 18297/08

  As regards the applicants" arguments that these legal requirements were too vague, the Court has held on numerous occasions that the concept of "law", which figures explicitly or implicitly in most of the articles of the Convention, implies qualitative requirements, including those of accessibility and foreseeability (see, mutatis mutandis, Cantoni v. France, 15 November 1996, § 29, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, and Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, § 145, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 18297/08

  Furthermore, a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see, among other authorities, Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 59, Series A no. 316-B; Khalfaoui v. France, no. 34791/97, § 35, ECHR 1999-IX, and Papon v. France, no. 54210/00, § 90, ECHR 2002-VII).
• EGMR, 27.04.2000 - 45023/98

  BEN SALAH ADRAQUI and DHAIME v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 18297/08

  It notes that the Convention institutions have consistently taken the view that that condition is not satisfied if a remedy has been declared inadmissible for failure to comply with a formal requirement (see, among other authorities, Ben Salah Adraqui and Dhaime v. Spain (dec.), no. 45023/98, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 12.06.2006 - 24079/02

  STEPENSKA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 18297/08

  Thus, if a State makes provision for an appeal to a higher instance, it is entitled to lay down the conditions for such an appeal (see Stepenska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 24079/02, 12 June 2006).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 14.05.2020 - 12391/06

  KADAGISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  The Court has found on several occasions that the introduction and application of admissibility requirements in respect of appeals on points of law lodged with courts of cassation pursue a legitimate aim in the interests of good administration of justice (see Tchaghiashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 19312/07, § 34, 2 September 2014; Nersesyan, cited above, § 22, 19 January 2010; and Borisenko and Yerevanyan Bazalt Ltd v. Armenia (dec.), no. 18297/08, 14 April 2009).
• EGMR, 21.09.2017 - 30743/09

  KUPARADZE v. GEORGIA

  The Court has found on several occasions that the introduction and application of admissibility requirements in respect of appeals on points of law lodged with courts of cassation pursue a legitimate aim in the interests of good administration of justice (see Tchaghiashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 19312/07, § 34, 2 September 2014; Nersesyan, cited above, § 22; and Borisenko and Yerevanyan Bazalt Ltd v. Armenia (dec.), no. 18297/08, 14 April 2009).
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 15371/07

  [ENG]

  The Court notes that it has already found that the introduction and application of admissibility requirements in respect of appeals on points of law lodged with the Court of Cassation pursued a legitimate aim in the interests of good administration of justice (see Borisenko and Yerevanyan Bazalt Ltd v. Armenia (dec.), no. 18297/08, 14 April 2009).
• EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 22343/08

  [ENG]

  The procedure of returning appeals for their failure to comply with admissibility requirements was introduced in November 2005 (see Borisenko and Yerevanyan Bazalt Ltd v. Armenia (dec.), no. 18297/08, 14 April 2009), but there is no material before the Court to indicate that the new rules were authoritatively interpreted by the Court of Cassation in such a way as to allow parties to lodge appeals repeatedly until the expiry of the time-limit for appeal.