Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WEBB v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

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

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

• EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 29753/96

  MÜLLER-EBERSTEIN v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 33186/96

  Further, where a supreme court refuses to accept a case on the basis that the legal grounds for such a case are not made out, very limited reasoning may satisfy the requirements of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention (see, for example, E. & G. Müller-Eberstein v. Germany, No. 29753/96, Dec. 27.11.96, concerning the Federal Constitutional Court in Germany, which rejects decisions in summary proceedings by reference to the statutory provisions governing the Federal Constitutional Court).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81

  MONNELL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 33186/96

  Account must be taken of the entirety of the proceedings in the domestic legal order and the role of the appeal court therein: in the case of leave to appeal proceedings, the nature of those proceedings and their significance in the context of the proceedings as a whole must be considered, together with the powers of the appellate jurisdiction and the manner in which the proceedings are actually conducted (see Eur. Court HR, Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 115, p. 22, para. 58, where no oral hearing was required on an application for leave to appeal to the English Court of Appeal).
• EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

  BRICMONT v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 33186/96

  The Commission's task under the Convention is to ascertain whether the proceedings, considered as a whole, were fair (Eur. Court HR, Bricmont v. Belgium judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, para. 89 and Saidi v. France judgment of 20 September 1993, Series A no. 261-C, p. 56, para. 43).

• EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 47450/11

  VALCHEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  In addition, in many cases the former Commission and the Court have reviewed various aspects of permission-to-appeal or similar proceedings under that provision (see Webb v. the United Kingdom, no. 33186/96, Commission decision of 2 July 1997, unreported; ITC (Isle of Man), P.S.W.H. and A.G.S. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45619/99, 29 February 2000; Nerva and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42295/98, 11 July 2000; Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI; Walczak v. Poland (dec.), no. 77395/01, 7 May 2002; Stepinska v. France, no. 1814/02, §§ 15-19, 15 June 2004; Guz v. Poland (dec.), no. 29293/02, 19 May 2005; Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, §§ 53-55, ECHR 2006-VI; Stepenska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 24079/02, 12 June 2006; Jaczkó v. Hungary, no. 40109/03, § 29, 18 July 2006; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 106, 18 December 2007; Mrúz v. Hungary, no. 3261/05, § 20, 14 October 2008; Lajos Németh v. Hungary, no. 3840/05, § 20, 21 October 2008; Makuszewski v. Poland, no. 35556/05, § 53, 13 January 2009; Grori v. Albania, no. 25336/04, § 199, 7 July 2009; Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009; Jakupi v. Albania (dec.), no. 11186/03, 1 December 2009; Nersesyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 15371/07, §§ 23-25, 19 January 2010; Bachowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 32463/06, 2 November 2010; and Dunn v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62793/10, §§ 27-40, 23 October 2012).