Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MELNYK v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 46129/99

  ZVOLSKÝ AND ZVOLSKÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 23436/03

  The Court underlines that, since the issue concerns the principle of legal certainty, it raises not only a problem of the interpretation of a legal provision in the usual way, but of an unreasonable construction of a procedural requirement which may prevent a claim being examined on the merits, thereby entailing a breach of the right to the effective protection of the courts (see, mutatis mutandis, the Miragall Escolano and others v. Spain judgment, no. 38366/97, § 37, ECHR 2001-I; Zvolský and Zvolská v. the Czech Republic judgment, no. 46129/99, § 51, ECHR 2002-IX).
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85

  HELMERS c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 23436/03

  Moreover, the manner in which Article 6 applies to courts of appeal or cassation must depend on the special features of the proceedings concerned and account must be taken of the entirety of the proceedings conducted in the domestic legal order and the court of cassation's role in them (see, for instance, the Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 115, p. 22, § 56, and the Helmers v. Sweden judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-A, p. 15, § 31); the conditions of admissibility of an appeal on points of law may be stricter than for an ordinary appeal (Levages Prestations Services v. France judgment of 23 October 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1544, § 45).
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 23436/03

  The Court reiterates that the right to a court, of which the right of access is one aspect (see the Golder v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 18, § 36), is not absolute; it may be subject to limitations permitted by implication, particularly regarding the conditions of admissibility of an appeal.
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81

  MONNELL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 23436/03

  Moreover, the manner in which Article 6 applies to courts of appeal or cassation must depend on the special features of the proceedings concerned and account must be taken of the entirety of the proceedings conducted in the domestic legal order and the court of cassation's role in them (see, for instance, the Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 115, p. 22, § 56, and the Helmers v. Sweden judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-A, p. 15, § 31); the conditions of admissibility of an appeal on points of law may be stricter than for an ordinary appeal (Levages Prestations Services v. France judgment of 23 October 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1544, § 45).

• EGMR, 09.11.2023 - 72173/17

  LEGROS ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  D'autre part, la réglementation relative aux formalités et aux délais à observer pour former un recours, ou l'application qui en est faite, ne devrait pas empêcher le justiciable de se prévaloir d'une voie de recours disponible (Pérez de Rada Cavanilles c. Espagne, 28 octobre 1998, § 45, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1998-VIII, Kaufmann c. Italie, no 14021/02, § 32, 19 mai 2005, Melnyk c. Ukraine, no 23436/03, § 23, 28 mars 2006, et Guillard c. France, précité, § 35).
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 64305/12

  STATIVKA v. UKRAINE

  However, the rules in question, or the application of them, should not prevent litigants from making use of an available remedy (see Melnyk v. Ukraine, no. 23436/03, §§ 22 and 23, 28 March 2006, and Kravchenko v. Ukraine, no. 46673/06, §§ 41 and 42, 30 June 2016).
• EGMR, 18.11.2010 - 8863/06

  MUSHTA v. UKRAINE

  However, the rules in question, or the application of them, should themselves correspond to the principle of legal certainty and should not prevent litigants from making use of an available remedy (see Melnyk v. Ukraine, no. 23436/03, §§ 22-23, 28 March 2006).

 
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 24488/04

  GUILLARD c. FRANCE

  Toutefois, la réglementation en question, ou l'application qui en est faite, ne devrait pas empêcher le justiciable de se prévaloir d'une voie de recours disponible (voir notamment Pérez de Rada Cavanilles c. Espagne, arrêt du 28 octobre 1998, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1998-VIII, p. 3255, § 45, Cañete de Goñi c. Espagne, no 55782/00, § 36, CEDH 2002-VIII, Kaufmann c. Italie, no 14021/02, § 32, 19 mai 2005 et Melnyk c. Ukraine, no 23436/03, § 23, 28 mars 2006).
• EGMR, 20.11.2008 - 36141/03

  LOUESLATI c. FRANCE

  Toutefois, la réglementation en question, ou l'application qui en est faite, ne devrait pas empêcher le justiciable de se prévaloir d'une voie de recours disponible (voir notamment Pérez de Rada Cavanilles c. Espagne, arrêt du 28 octobre 1998, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1998-VIII, p. 3255, § 45, Cañete de Goñi c. Espagne, no 55782/00, § 36, CEDH 2002-VIII, Kaufmann c. Italie, no 14021/02, § 32, 19 mai 2005 et Melnyk c. Ukraine, no 23436/03, § 23, 28 mars 2006).
• EGMR, 21.09.2021 - 66107/12

  PISSENS ET EUROMETAAL N.V. c. BELGIQUEu000a

  Du reste, les requérants n'ont pas fait valoir que la loi et son interprétation par les juridictions internes étaient imprévisibles, et la Cour ne décèle aucun élément pouvant attester que tel était le cas, eu égard au caractère bien établi de la jurisprudence interne quant au point de départ du délai de prescription en cette matière (paragraphe 29 ci-dessus ; voir et comparer, Melnyk c. Ukraine, no 23436/03, § 29, 28 mars 2006, Kamenova c. Bulgarie, no 62784/09, §§ 48-49, 12 juillet 2018, Kur?Ÿun c. Turquie, no 22677/10, § 98, 30 octobre 2018, et Gros c. Slovénie, no 45315/18, § 29, 7 juillet 2020).
• EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 7517/10

  DURACKA v. SLOVAKIA

  Since the issue concerns the principle of legal certainty, it raises not only a problem of the interpretation of a legal provision in the usual way, but also a problem of the unreasonable construction of a procedural requirement that may prevent a claim from being examined on the merits, thereby entailing a breach of the right to effective protection of the courts (see Melnyk v. Ukraine, no. 23436/03, § 23, 28 March 2006, with further references).
• EGMR, 05.10.2021 - 13769/15

  GREGACEVIC v. CROATIA

  Therefore, in a number of cases the Court, in order to satisfy itself that the right of access to court had not been impaired, went on to examine whether the calculation of the time-limit in question could have been regarded as foreseeable for the applicant (see, for example, Osu v. Italy, no. 36534/97, § 35, 11 July 2002, and Melnyk v. Ukraine, no. 23436/03, § 26, 28 March 2006).