Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ITSLAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 08.12.1999 - 28541/95

  PELLEGRIN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 34631/02

  They referred to the Court's judgment in the case of Pellegrin v. France ([GC], no. 28541/95, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 34631/02

  Limitations on the right to a court are compatible with Article 6 only if they do not restrict or reduce the access left to the litigant in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired; lastly such limitations will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if they do not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, § 57).
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 34631/02

  The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone "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 Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, § 36).

• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 5447/03

  KOROLEV v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  The dispute must be genuine and serious; it may relate not only to the actual existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise; and, finally, the result of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences not being sufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see, among others, Itslayev v. Russia, no. 34631/02, § 25, 9 October 2008).