Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PAYKAR YEV HAGHTANAK LTD v. ARMENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 21638/03
• EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 21638/03

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 21638/03

  The Court also considers it necessary to point out that a judgment in which it finds a violation of the Convention or its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, if any, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and make all feasible reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII; Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 487, ECHR 2004-VII; and Lungoci v. Romania, no. 62710/00, § 55, 26 January 2006).
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 48787/99

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 21638/03

  The Court also considers it necessary to point out that a judgment in which it finds a violation of the Convention or its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, if any, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and make all feasible reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII; Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 487, ECHR 2004-VII; and Lungoci v. Romania, no. 62710/00, § 55, 26 January 2006).
• EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 62710/00

  LUNGOCI c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 21638/03

  The Court also considers it necessary to point out that a judgment in which it finds a violation of the Convention or its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, if any, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and make all feasible reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII; Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 487, ECHR 2004-VII; and Lungoci v. Romania, no. 62710/00, § 55, 26 January 2006).

 
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 44759/98

  Verletzung des Rechts auf ein faires Verfahren durch überlange Verfahrensdauer; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 21638/03

  The Court reiterates at the outset that tax disputes fall outside the scope of civil rights and obligations under Article 6, despite the pecuniary effects which they necessarily produce for the taxpayer (see, among other authorities, Ferrazzini v. Italy [GC], no. 44759/98, § 29, ECHR 2001-VII).
• EGMR, 23.07.2002 - 34619/97

  JANOSEVIC c. SUEDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 21638/03

  However, when such proceedings involve the imposition of surcharges or fines, then they may, in certain circumstances, attract the guarantees of Article 6 under its "criminal" head (see Bendenoun v. France, judgment of 24 February 1994, Series A no. 284, p. 20, § 47; Janosevic v. Sweden, no. 34619/97, § 71, ECHR 2002-VII; and Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, § 38, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 23.11.2006 - 73053/01

  JUSSILA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 21638/03

  However, when such proceedings involve the imposition of surcharges or fines, then they may, in certain circumstances, attract the guarantees of Article 6 under its "criminal" head (see Bendenoun v. France, judgment of 24 February 1994, Series A no. 284, p. 20, § 47; Janosevic v. Sweden, no. 34619/97, § 71, ECHR 2002-VII; and Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, § 38, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

  Öztürk ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 21638/03

  In determining whether an offence qualifies as "criminal", three criteria are to be applied: the legal classification of the offence in domestic law, the nature of the offence and the degree of severity of the possible penalty (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, pp. 34-35, § 82; OÌ?ztuÌ?rk v.Germany, judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73, p. 18, § 50; and Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39665/98 and 40086/98, § 82, ECHR 2003-X).
• EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 12547/86

  BENDENOUN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 21638/03

  However, when such proceedings involve the imposition of surcharges or fines, then they may, in certain circumstances, attract the guarantees of Article 6 under its "criminal" head (see Bendenoun v. France, judgment of 24 February 1994, Series A no. 284, p. 20, § 47; Janosevic v. Sweden, no. 34619/97, § 71, ECHR 2002-VII; and Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, § 38, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 28249/95

  KREUZ c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 21638/03

  Referring to the case of Kreuz v. Poland (no. 28249/95, § 60, ECHR 2001-VI), they further claimed that the requirement to pay fees to civil courts in connection with claims they are asked to determine could not be regarded as a restriction on the right of access to a court that was incompatible per se with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, unless this requirement impaired the very essence of this right.