Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOCHERGA v. UKRAINE

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

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 26017/07

  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, 2 March 1987, §§ 56-57, Series A no. 115; 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 - 61406/00

  GUREPKA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 26017/07

  The domestic courts are best placed to interpret and apply rules of substantive and procedural law (see, among many other authorities, Gurepka v. Ukraine, no. 61406/00, § 45, 6 September 2005).
• EGMR, 21.03.2006 - 39765/04

  SALE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 26017/07

  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, 2 March 1987, §§ 56-57, Series A no. 115; 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, 05.04.2011 - 26017/07

  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, 2 March 1987, §§ 56-57, Series A no. 115; Glender v. Sweden (dec.), no. 28070/03, 6 September 2005; and Sale v. France, no. 39765/04, § 17, 21 March 2006).
• EGMR, 12.06.2006 - 24079/02

  STEPENSKA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 26017/07

  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).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• 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).