Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STEPENSKA v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 53203/99

  VANYAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2006 - 24079/02

  While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is therefore primarily a matter for regulation under national law (Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, § 45, 15 December 2005).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2006 - 24079/02

  When a Supreme Court determines in a preliminary examination of a case, whether or not the conditions required for granting leave to appeal have been fulfilled, the manner of application of this provision must depend on the special features of the proceedings involved (see, mutatis mutandis, Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 115, §§ 56-57, Glender v. Sweden (dec.), no. 28070/03, 6 September 2005, and Sale v. France, no. 39765/04, § 17, 21 March 2006).
• EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 39765/04

  SALE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2006 - 24079/02

  When a Supreme Court determines in a preliminary examination of a case, whether or not the conditions required for granting leave to appeal have been fulfilled, the manner of application of this provision must depend on the special features of the proceedings involved (see, mutatis mutandis, Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 115, §§ 56-57, Glender v. Sweden (dec.), no. 28070/03, 6 September 2005, and Sale v. France, no. 39765/04, § 17, 21 March 2006).
• EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 28070/03

  GLENDER v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2006 - 24079/02

  When a Supreme Court determines in a preliminary examination of a case, whether or not the conditions required for granting leave to appeal have been fulfilled, the manner of application of this provision must depend on the special features of the proceedings involved (see, mutatis mutandis, Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 115, §§ 56-57, Glender v. Sweden (dec.), no. 28070/03, 6 September 2005, and Sale v. France, no. 39765/04, § 17, 21 March 2006).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 47450/11

  VALCHEV v. BULGARIA and 3 ohter applications

  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, 21.07.2011 - 39598/03

  [ENG]

  The Government were of the opinion that the leave to appeal proceedings in the present case had been similar to those of the civil case of Stepenska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 24079/02, 12 June 2006, where the Court had found that the absence of an oral hearing before the panel had been justified.
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 15371/07

  [ENG]

  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, 21.10.2010 - 45783/05

  [ENG]

  In this regard, they drew an analogy between the present case and Stepenska v. Ukraine ((dec.), no. 24079/02, 12 June 2006) where the Supreme Court of Ukraine, sitting in camera, rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal in cassation, having found that there were no grounds for referring the case to the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court.
• EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 19312/07

  TCHAGHIASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Indeed, the Court has consistently ruled on various different occasions that, where a preliminary procedure for the examination and admission of an appeal on points of law is concerned, a domestic appellate court cannot be obliged under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to give extensive reasoning when it simply applies a specific legal provision to dismiss an appeal as having no prospects of success (see, for instance, Nersesyan, cited above, § 23 and 24; Burg and Others v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, ECHR 2003-II; Gorou v. Greece (no. 2) [GC], no. 12686/03, § 41, 20 March 2009; Stepenska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 24079/02, 12 June 2006; Glender v. Sweden (dec.), no. 28070/03, 6 September 2005; 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, 02.10.2007 - 16411/03

  MILOVANOVA v. UKRAINE

  In so far as the applicant complained about the lack of a hearing before the panel of the Supreme Court, the Court is satisfied that the question whether or not to grant leave to appeal was adequately resolved on the basis of the case file and the written submissions of the appellant, and that, accordingly, the absence of an oral hearing before the panel was justified (see Stepenska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 24079/02, 12 June 2006).
• EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 18297/08

  BORISENKO AND YEREVANYAN BAZALT LTD v. ARMENIA

  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).
• EGMR, 06.03.2018 - 19297/08

  BAZHAN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  The fact that the Zaporizhzhya Court of Appeal, acting as a court of third level of jurisdiction, examined the applicants' cassation appeals without the parties' participation raises no issue under that provision either (see, mutatis mutandis, Stepenska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 24079/02, 12 June 2006).
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 36007/07

  SHAPOVAL v. UKRAINE

  In the circumstances of the present case, the Court is satisfied that there was no need for detailed reasoning since it was clear that the request for leave to appeal was refused because the applicant had not demonstrated the existence of arguable grounds which would have justified referral of the case to the Chamber of the Supreme Court (see Stepenska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 24079/02, 12 June 2006, and Kocherga v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 26017/07, 5 April 2011).
• EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 26017/07

  KOCHERGA v. UKRAINE

  In the circumstances of the present case, the Court is satisfied that the question whether or not to grant leave to appeal could be adequately resolved on the basis of the case file and the written submissions of the appellant and that there was no need for detailed reasoning since it was clear that the request for leave to appeal was refused because the applicant had not demonstrated the existence of arguable grounds which would have justified referral of the case to the Chamber of the Supreme Court (see Stepenska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 24079/02, 12 June 2006).
• EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 14198/02

  TATENKO v. UKRAINE