Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PALIUTIS v. LITHUANIA

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PALIUTIS v. LITHUANIA

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

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 34085/09
• EGMR, 10.05.2017 - 34085/09

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 34085/09

  In this way the Article embodies the "right to a court", of which the right of access, that is, the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters, constitutes one aspect only (see, among many other authorities, Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18, and Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 43, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98

  Enteignung eines Gemäldes in Tschechien auf Grund der Benes-Dekrete - …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 34085/09

  In this way the Article embodies the "right to a court", of which the right of access, that is, the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters, constitutes one aspect only (see, among many other authorities, Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18, and Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 43, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99

  PEREZ c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 34085/09

  In other words, the effect of Article 6 is, among others, to place the "tribunal" under a duty to conduct a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence presented by the parties, without prejudice to its assessment of whether they are relevant (see, among many other authorities, Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 80, ECHR 2004-I, and Albina v. Romania, no. 57808/00, § 30, 28 April 2005).

• EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 28856/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 34085/09

  While an appellate court may, in principle, simply endorse the reasons for a lower court's decision, this will not suffice in those cases where the lower court did not provide such reasons as to enable the parties to make effective use of their right of appeal (see Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 73, ECHR 2002-IV, and Boldea v. Romania, no. 19997/02, § 33, 15 February 2007).
• EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 19997/02

  BOLDEA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 34085/09

  While an appellate court may, in principle, simply endorse the reasons for a lower court's decision, this will not suffice in those cases where the lower court did not provide such reasons as to enable the parties to make effective use of their right of appeal (see Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 73, ECHR 2002-IV, and Boldea v. Romania, no. 19997/02, § 33, 15 February 2007).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25644/94

  T.W. v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 34085/09

  The Court reiterates that an applicant who has exhausted a remedy that is apparently effective and sufficient cannot be required also to have tried others that were available but probably no more likely to be successful (see, among many other authorities, T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 34, 29 April 1999).
• EGMR, 28.04.2005 - 57808/00

  ALBINA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 34085/09

  In other words, the effect of Article 6 is, among others, to place the "tribunal" under a duty to conduct a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence presented by the parties, without prejudice to its assessment of whether they are relevant (see, among many other authorities, Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 80, ECHR 2004-I, and Albina v. Romania, no. 57808/00, § 30, 28 April 2005).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen