Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  McELHINNEY v. IRELAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 30 MRK
  No violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  McELHINNEY c. IRLANDE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 30 MRK
  Non-violation de l'art. 6-1 (französisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.02.2000 - 31253/96
• EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 31253/96

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 31253/96

  Toutefois, par exemple, qu'un Etat puisse sans réserve ou sans contrôle des organes de la Convention soustraire à la compétence des tribunaux toute une série d'actions civiles ou exonérer de toute responsabilité civile de larges groupes ou catégories de personnes ne se concilierait pas avec la prééminence du droit dans une société démocratique ni avec le principe fondamental qui sous-tend l'article 6 § 1 - à savoir que les revendications civiles doivent pouvoir être portées devant un juge (arrêt Fayed c. Royaume-Uni du 21 septembre 1994, série A n° 294-B, § 65).
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 31253/96

  L'article 6 § 1 garantit à chacun le droit à ce qu'un tribunal connaisse de toute contestation relative à ses droits et obligations de caractère civil (arrêt Golder c. Royaume-Uni du 21 février 1975, série A n° 18, pp. 13-18, §§ 28-36).

• EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 35763/97

  AL-ADSANI c. ROYAUME-UNI

  However, I would prefer to adopt as my main reasoning for finding a violation of Article 6 in this case the same approach that I adopt in McElhinney v. Ireland ([GC], no. 31253/96, ECHR 2001-XI) and Fogarty v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 37112/97, ECHR 2001-XI), which can be summed up as follows.
• EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 62539/00

  JURISIC AND COLLEGIUM MEHRERAU v. AUSTRIA

  It has been the Court's consistent case-law that Article 6 applies only to disputes over "rights" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law (see, amongst many other authorities, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, Z and Others, at § 81 and the authorities cited therein together with McElhinney v. Ireland [GC], no. 31253/96, § 23, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts)).

  In these cases Article 6 was held applicable (see Tinnelly & Sons Ltd and Others and McElduff and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 10 July 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV; Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, ECHR 2001-XI; Fogarty v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 37112/97, ECHR 2001-XI and McElhinney v. Ireland [GC], no. 31253/96, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts)).

• EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 10523/02

  COORPLAN-JENNI GMBH AND HASCIC v. AUSTRIA

  It has been the Court's consistent case-law that Article 6 applies only to disputes over "rights" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law (see, amongst many other authorities, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, Z and Others, at § 81 and the authorities cited therein together with McElhinney v. Ireland [GC], no. 31253/96, § 23, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts)).

  In these cases Article 6 was held applicable (see Tinnelly & Sons Ltd and Others and McElduff and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 10 July 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV; Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, ECHR 2001-XI; Fogarty v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 37112/97, ECHR 2001-XI and McElhinney v. Ireland [GC], no. 31253/96, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 35720/04

  VRIONI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA AND ITALY

  The Court refers to its case-law on the exercise of territorial and extraterritorial jurisdiction by a Contracting State (see, for example, Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain, judgment of 26 June 1992, Series A no. 240; Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and 16 Other Contracting States (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, ECHR 2001-XII; Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004-VII; McElhinney v. Ireland and the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], no. 31253/96, 9 February 2000).

  As the right of access to a court is an inherent part of the fair-trial guarantee in that Article, so some restrictions on access must likewise be regarded as inherent, an example being those limitations generally accepted by the community of nations as part of the doctrine of State immunity (see McElhinney v. Ireland [GC], no. 31253/96, § 37, ECHR 2001-XI; Manoilescu and Dobrescu, (dec.), cited above, § 80, ECHR 2005-VI; and, Treska, cited above).

• EGMR, 09.05.2006 - 60255/00

  PEREIRA HENRIQUES c. LUXEMBOURG

  Ses garanties ne valent que pour les droits que l'on peut dire, au moins de manière défendable, reconnus en droit interne (voir James et autres c. Royaume-Uni, arrêt du 21 février 1986, série A no 98, Z et autres, précité, § 81, et les précédents cités dans cette affaire, ainsi que McElhinney c. Irlande [GC], no 31253/96, § 23, CEDH 2001-XI (extraits)).
• EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 26664/03

  K.T. v. NORWAY

  Its guarantees extend only to rights which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, and Z and Others, § 81, and the authorities cited therein, together with McElhinney v. Ireland [GC], no. 31253/96, § 23, 21 November 2001; and Fogarty v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 37112/97, § 117, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts)).
• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 27183/08

  MALBASIC v. SLOVENIA

  As to the question whether the time-limit applied to the applicant's case excessively restricted his right to access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see the general principles stated in McElhinney v. Ireland [GC], no. 31253/96, § 34, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts), and Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 63, ECHR 1999-V), the Court reiterates that according to the Kocevje Local Court's and the Ljubljana Higher Court's opinions, the applicant should have pursued his claim against the alleged legal successor of company S. within one year from the publication of the striking-off, in order to secure the enforcement of his claim against that successor (see paragraphs 12 and 15 above).