Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SLIVKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2004 - 32872/03

  In principle, it does not suffice for an individual applicant to claim that the mere existence of a law violates his rights under the Convention; it is necessary that the law should have been applied to his detriment (see Klass and Others v. Germany, judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, pp. 17-18, § 33).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2004 - 32872/03

  These amendments therefore could not have interfered with the judicial determination of the applicant's dispute within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, e.g., the Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, pp. 81-82, §§ 47-50).
• EGMR, 07.06.2001 - 39594/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2004 - 32872/03

  It requires "a fair balance between the parties": each party must be given a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent (see, among other authorities, Ankerl v. Switzerland, no. 17748/91, § 38, ECHR 1996-V and Kress v. France [GC], no. 39594/98, § 72, ECHR 2001-VI).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 72493/10

  DRAFT - OVA A.S. v. SLOVAKIA

  Accordingly, Article 34 does not provide individuals with a remedy in the nature of an actio popularis (see, for example, Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 33, Series A no. 28; Slivková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 32872/03, 14 December 2004; and Fruni v. Slovakia, no. 8014/07, § 133, 21 June 2011).
• EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 42533/11

  PSMA, SPOL. S R.O. v. SLOVAKIA

  Accordingly, Article 34 does not provide individuals with a remedy in the nature of an actio popularis (see, for example, Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 33, Series A no. 28; Slivková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 32872/03, 14 December 2004; and Fruni v. Slovakia, no. 8014/07, § 133, 21 June 2011).
• EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 25132/13

  COMPCAR, S.R.O. v. SLOVAKIA

  Accordingly, Article 34 does not provide individuals with a remedy in the nature of an actio popularis (see, for example, Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 33, Series A no. 28; Slivková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 32872/03, 14 December 2004; and Fruni v. Slovakia, no. 8014/07, § 133, 21 June 2011).

• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 55631/12

  ALMEDIA SPOL. S R.O. v. SLOVAKIA

  Further context is provided in the Court's decision in Slivková v. Slovakia (no. 32872/03, 14 December 2004).
• EGMR, 19.05.2015 - 71123/13

  DEGRO v. SLOVAKIA

  Accordingly, Article 34 does not provide individuals with a remedy in the nature of an actio popularis (see, for example, Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 33, Series A no. 28; Slivková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 32872/03, 14 December 2004; and Fruni v. Slovakia, no. 8014/07, § 133, 21 June 2011).
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 34931/08

  [ENG]

  Moreover, the Court recalls that Article 34 of the Convention requires that an individual applicant should be able to claim to be actually affected by the measure of which he or she complains (Slivková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 32872/03, 14 December 2004; Ichin and others v. Ukraine (nos. 28189/04 and 28192/04), § 26, mutatis mutandis; 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 27450/05

  [ENG]

  That Article accordingly does not provide individuals with an action in the nature of an actio popularis (see, for example, Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 33, Series A no. 28, and Slivková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 32872/03, 14 December 2004).
• EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 33078/06

  [ENG]

  In principle, it does not suffice for an individual applicant to claim that the mere existence of a law violates his or her rights under the Convention; it is necessary that the law should have been applied to his or her detriment (see, for example, Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 33, Series A no. 28, and Slivková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 32872/03, 14 December 2004).