Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FLORIN IONESCU v. ROMANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 24916/05

  The Government contended that the right of access to court is not absolute, mentioning in this respect the judgements pronounced by the Court in Golder v. the United Kingdom (21 February 1975, § 38, Series A no. 18), and Bellet v. France (4 December 1995, § 31, Series A no. 333-B).
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 26083/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 24916/05

  The right of access to court in civil matters constitutes one aspect of the "right to a court" embodied in Article 6 § 1 (see, amongst many other authorities, Aksoy v. Turkey judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, p. 2285, § 92; Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, § 50, ECHR 1999-I; and Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A, no. 18, p. 18, § 36).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 24916/05

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Foley v. the United Kingdom, no. 39197/98, § 36, 22 October 2002).

• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99

  PEREZ c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 24916/05

  To fall within the scope of the Convention such right must be indissociable from the victim's exercise of a right to bring civil proceedings in domestic law (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 70, ECHR 2004-I).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 23805/94

  BELLET c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 24916/05

  The Government contended that the right of access to court is not absolute, mentioning in this respect the judgements pronounced by the Court in Golder v. the United Kingdom (21 February 1975, § 38, Series A no. 18), and Bellet v. France (4 December 1995, § 31, Series A no. 333-B).
• KAG Mainz, 12.01.2012 - M 28/11

  "Einkehrtag" als beteiligungspflichtige Veranstaltung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 24916/05

  28/11/2011.
• EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 64320/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 24916/05

  41138/98 and 64320/01, §§ 119-122, ECHR 2005-VII (extracts), and Forum Maritime S.A., cited above, § 91), it stressed the importance of the existence of other effective remedies for the civil claims.
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 19567/02

  MATICA v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 24916/05

  This deficiency is imputable to the authorities and not to the applicants (see Matica v. Romania, no. 19567/02, § 24, 2 November 2006).
• EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 39197/98

  FOLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 24916/05

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Foley v. the United Kingdom, no. 39197/98, § 36, 22 October 2002).
• EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 12686/03

  Gorou ./. Griechenland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 24916/05

  Therefore, Article 6 applies to proceedings involving civil-party complaints from the moment the complainant is joined as a civil party, unless he or she has waived the right to reparation in an unequivocal manner (see Gorou v. Greece (no. 2) [GC], no. 12686/03, § 25, ECHR 2009-).
• EGMR, 04.08.2005 - 77517/01

  STOIANOVA ET NEDELCU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 72439/01

  SOARE c. ROUMANIE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.10.2026 - 5232/24

  DACI v. ALBANIA

  In this context, it is not the Court's task to substitute itself for the domestic courts as regards the assessment of the facts and their legal classification, provided that these are based on a reasonable assessment of the evidence (see, mutatis mutandis, Florin Ionescu v. Romania, no. 24916/05, § 59, 24 May 2011).
• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 59552/08

  [FRE]

  The Court also reiterates that it is not its task to substitute itself for the domestic courts as regards the assessment of the facts and their legal classification, provided that these are based on a reasonable assessment of the evidence (see, mutatis mutandis, Florin Ionescu v. Romania, no. 24916/05, § 59, 24 May 2011).
• EGMR, 08.06.2016 - 1295/02

  NICOLAU ET 79 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA ROUMANIE

  24916/05.

• EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 39300/18

  SACHARUK v. LITHUANIA

  In this context, the Court would reiterate that it is not its task to substitute itself for the domestic courts as regards the assessment of the facts and their legal classification, provided that these are based on a reasonable assessment of the evidence (see, mutatis mutandis, Florin Ionescu v. Romania, no. 24916/05, § 59, 24 May 2011).
• EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 21682/11

  SAGVOLDEN v. NORWAY

  It also reiterates that it is not its task to substitute itself for the domestic courts as regards the assessment of the facts and their legal classification, provided that these are based on a reasonable assessment of the evidence (see, mutatis mutandis, Florin Ionescu v. Romania, no. 24916/05, § 59, 24 May 2011).
• EGMR, 22.01.2015 - 26671/09

  [FRE]

  Nous rappelons la position de la Cour qui consiste à ne pas revenir sur l'établissement des faits par les juridictions nationales, mais plutôt de s'appuyer sur eux ainsi que sur l'interprétation donnée par elles du droit interne (voir, par exemple, Taxquet c. Belgique [GC], no 926/05, § 57, CEDH 2010, et Florin Ionescu c. Roumanie, no 24916/05, § 59, 24 mai 2011).
• EGMR, 14.04.2015 - 66655/13

  CONTRADA c. ITALIE

  La Cour rappelle également qu'elle n'a pas pour tâche de se substituer aux juridictions internes dans l'appréciation et la qualification juridique des faits, pourvu que celles-ci reposent sur une analyse raisonnable des éléments du dossier (voir, mutatis mutandis, Florin Ionescu c. Roumanie, no 24916/05, § 59, 24 mai 2011).
• EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 6319/21

  FABBRI AND OTHERS v. SAN MARINO

  Therefore, Article 6 applies to proceedings involving civil-party complaints from the moment the complainant is joined as a civil party, unless he or she has waived the right to reparation in an unequivocal manner (ibid. § 25, and Florin Ionescu v. Romania, no. 24916/05, § 55, 24 May 2011), even during the preliminary investigation stage taken on its own (see Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, § 207, 25 June 2019).