Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GRYAZNOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing Adversarial trial Equality of arms) No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Access ...

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 26083/94

  WAITE AND KENNEDY v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 19673/03

  The Court notes that it has already found that certain privileges and immunities from civil liability are compatible with Article 6 § 1. Just as the right of access to court is an inherent part of the fair trial guarantee in that Article, so some restrictions on access must likewise be regarded as inherent, an example being those limitations generally accepted by signatory States as part of the doctrine of parliamentary immunity (see A. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 83) or generally recognised rules of public international law on State immunity or on immunity of international organisations (see, on State immunity, Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 56, ECHR 2001-XI, and Fogarty v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 37112/97, § 36, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts), see also, on immunity of international organisation, Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, §§ 50-74, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 19673/03

  At the same time, the Court has also found that it would not be consistent with the rule of law in a democratic society, or with the basic principle underlying Article 6 § 1 - namely that civil claims must be capable of being submitted to a judge for adjudication - if a State could, without restraint or control by the Convention enforcement bodies, remove from the jurisdiction of the courts a whole range of civil claims, or confer immunities from civil liability on large groups or categories of persons (see Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 65, Series A no. 294-B, and Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 47, ECHR 2001-XI).
• EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 37112/97

  FOGARTY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 19673/03

  The Court notes that it has already found that certain privileges and immunities from civil liability are compatible with Article 6 § 1. Just as the right of access to court is an inherent part of the fair trial guarantee in that Article, so some restrictions on access must likewise be regarded as inherent, an example being those limitations generally accepted by signatory States as part of the doctrine of parliamentary immunity (see A. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 83) or generally recognised rules of public international law on State immunity or on immunity of international organisations (see, on State immunity, Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 56, ECHR 2001-XI, and Fogarty v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 37112/97, § 36, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts), see also, on immunity of international organisation, Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, §§ 50-74, ECHR 1999-I).

 
• EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 35115/97

  RIEPAN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 19673/03

  They could have held a session by way of a video link or in the applicant's correctional colony, in so far as it was possible under the rules on court jurisdiction (see paragraphs 29 and 31 above and, for the relevant principles, Riepan v. Austria, no. 35115/97, §§ 27-42, ECHR 2000-XII, and Marcello Viola v. Italy, no. 45106/04, § 49 et seq., ECHR 2006-XI (extracts)).The Court finds it inexplicable that the domestic courts did not consider these options (see, for similar reasoning, Sokur, cited above, § 36, and Shilbergs, cited above, § 109).
• EGMR, 16.11.2000 - 39442/98

  SOTIRIS ET NIKOS KOUTRAS ATTEE c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 19673/03

  The Court's role is confined to ascertaining whether the effects of such an interpretation are compatible with the Convention (see Société Anonyme Sotiris and Nikos Koutras Attee v. Greece, no. 39442/98, § 17, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 19673/03

  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, 23.10.2008 - 13470/02

  KHUZHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 19673/03

  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 (see Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, § 105, 23 October 2008).
• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 19673/03

  The Court reiterates that the principle of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms, which is one of the elements of the broader concept of a fair hearing, requires that each party be given a reasonable opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations made or evidence adduced by the other party and to present its case under conditions that do not place it at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis its 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, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 19673/03

  The Court reiterates that while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, §§ 45-46, and Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC] no. 30544/96, ECHR 1999-I, § 28).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 19673/03

  The Court reiterates that while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, §§ 45-46, and Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC] no. 30544/96, ECHR 1999-I, § 28).

• EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 61985/12

  FLEISCHNER v. GERMANY

  Somit wurde dem Beschwerdeführer vom Amtsgericht die Gelegenheit zur Beweisführung in eigener Sache nicht vorenthalten (im Gegensatz dazu Gryaznov./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 19673/03, Rdnr. 61, 12. Juni 2012).
• EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 5386/10

  ZAYIDOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

  Nevertheless, any restriction imposed on the right of a party to civil proceedings to call witnesses and to adduce other evidence in support of his or her case must be consistent with the requirements of a fair trial within the meaning of paragraph 1 of that Article, including the principle of equality of arms (see Gryaznov v. Russia, no. 19673/03, § 57, 12 June 2012, and Gillissen v. the Netherlands, no. 39966/09, § 50, 15 March 2016).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 23.09.2020 - C-397/19

  Statul Român - Ministerul Finantelor Publice - Vorabentscheidungsvorlage - …

  50 Vgl. z. B. Urteile des EGMR vom 15. Juli 2003 Ernst u. a./Belgien, CE:ECHR:2003:0715JUD003340096, §§ 47 bis 57, sowie vom 12. Juni 2012, Gryaznov/Russland, CE:ECHR:2012:0612JUD001967303, §§ 76 f. Vgl. auch Urteil vom 30. September 2003, Köbler (…C-224/01, EU:C:2003:513, Rn. 36).

 
• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 78042/16

  X ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  La Cour estime toutefois qu'il s'agit là d'un point à examiner au regard de l'article 13 combiné avec l'article 8, et non de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (Z et autres c. Royaume-Uni, précité, § 102, et Gryaznov c. Russie, no 19673/03, § 82, 12 juin 2012).
• EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 2641/06

  TSVETELIN PETKOV v. BULGARIA

  In that connection the Court recalls that, in a series of cases in which it examined the question of personal participation of applicants in judicial proceedings as a "fair trial" issue under Article 6 § 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Sokur v. Russia, no. 23243/03, § 30 et seq., 15 October 2009; Kovalev v. Russia, no. 78145/01, § 37, 10 May 2007; Gryaznov v. Russia, no. 19673/03, § 49, 12 June 2012; Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, §§ 53 et seq., 23 October 2008; Mokhov v. Russia, no. 28245/04, §§ 41 et seq., 4 March 2010), it found a violation of that provision as a result of the applicants not having been given an opportunity to take part in hearings, when their participation would have been crucial as their claims had been largely based on their personal experience.
• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 9867/06

  PODKORYTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019, concerning poor conditions of transport of detainees; Zadumov v. Russia, no. 2257/12, 12 December 2017, Kasparov and Others v. Russia (no. 2), no. 51988/07, 13 December 2016, and Gryaznov v. Russia, no. 19673/03, 12 June 2012, concerning unfair court proceedings in view of the lack of practical opportunities to adduce evidence in support of applicant's version of events, including by questioning defence witnesses, or given the court's failure to address the decisive argument and to motivate the decision accordingly; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos.
• EGMR - 21718/06

  KOCHERGA v. RUSSIA

  Was there a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the applicant's access to a court (judgment of 19 April 2005 by the Kemerovo Regional Court, as upheld on 12 October 2005) (cf. Vasilyev and Kovtun v. Russia, no. 13703/04, §§ 48-56, 13 December 2011, and Gryaznov v. Russia, no. 19673/03, §§ 74-83, 12 June 2012)?.