Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAMAT v. TURKEY

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SAMAT v. TURKEY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 59 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 29115/07

  The Court has already ruled that next-of-kin or an heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 07.04.2016 - 18275/08

  SIMONYAN v. ARMENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 29115/07

  Normally, the priority under Article 41 of the Convention is restitutio in integrum, as the respondent State is expected to make all feasible reparation for the consequences of the violation in such a manner as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see, for example, Simonyan v. Armenia, no. 18275/08, § 30, 7 April 2016).
• EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 25132/13

  COMPCAR, S.R.O. v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 29115/07

  That power must be exercised so as to strike, to the maximum extent possible, a fair balance between the interests of an individual and the need to ensure the effectiveness of the system of justice (see the recapitulation of general principles in COMPCAR, s.r.o. v. Slovakia, no. 25132/13, § 63, 9 June 2015 with further references).

• EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 50849/21

  WALESA v. POLAND

  The review should not be treated as an ordinary appeal in disguise, and the mere possibility of there being two views on the subject is not a ground for re-examination (see Rosca v. Moldova, no. 6267/02, § 25, 22 March 2005; Agrokompleks v. Ukraine, no. 23465/03, § 148, 6 October 2011; Vardanyan and Nanushyan v. Armenia, no. 8001/07, § 67, 27 October 2016; ?žamat v. Turkey, no. 29115/07, § 53, 21 January 2020; and Tigrak v. Turkey, no. 70306/10, § 48, 6 July 2021).

  In the Court's view, these elements indicate that the remedy was used by the Prosecutor General as an "ordinary appeal in disguise", whose aim was to have the same facts and subject-matter re-examined in fresh proceedings and give the defendant in the original proceedings, on whose behalf he was acting, yet another chance to have his civil liability redetermined after having lost his case (compare ?žamat v. Turkey, no. 29115/07, § 61, 21 January 2020).

• EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 16087/18

  JELCIC STEPINAC v. CROATIA

  These principles apply not only in cases where a final judgment is quashed but also where it is deprived of legal effect on account of a decision given in separate proceedings (see, for example, Gra?¾uleviciute, cited above, § 79; Samat v. Turkey, no. 29115/07, §§ 59 et seq., 21 January 2020; and Krivtsova v. Russia, no. 35802/16, § 38, 12 July 2022).
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 53176/17

  GRAZULEVICIUTE v. LITHUANIA

  Accordingly, the Court cannot hold that in the circumstances of the present case the principle of legal certainty was disturbed in order to correct a "fundamental defect" or a "miscarriage of justice" (see, among other authorities, Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IX, and, more recently, Samat v. Turkey, no. 29115/07, § 62, 21 January 2020).
• EGMR, 20.09.2022 - 45580/15

  TREGUET c. RUSSIE

  S'agissant des recours extraordinaires, la Cour a toujours accordé une importance primordiale à l'existence de motifs substantiels et impérieux, seuls de nature à justifier une dérogation au principe de la sécurité juridique (Riabykh c. Russie, no 52854/99, § 52, CEDH 2003-IX, et, dernièrement, Samat c. Turquie, no 29115/07, § 64, 21 janvier 2020, et Tigrak, précité, § 48, 49 et 52).