Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×
Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 02.03.1999

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 34791/97   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1999,22059
EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 34791/97 (https://dejure.org/1999,22059)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14.12.1999 - 34791/97 (https://dejure.org/1999,22059)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14. Dezember 1999 - 34791/97 (https://dejure.org/1999,22059)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1999,22059) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KHALFAOUI v. FRANCE

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KHALFAOUI c. FRANCE

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation de l'Art. 6-1 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ...

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (64)Zitiert selbst (9)

  • EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81
    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 34791/97
    The Court observes that the aim cited by the Government in justification of the existence of such an obligation was not the - in principle legitimate - one of discouraging abusive appeals to the Court of Cassation to enable that court to deal with meritorious appeals within a reasonable time (see, mutatis mutandis, the Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 115, p. 19, § 46, and p. 23, § 59).

    Reference is made, in the judgment of the majority, to the decision of the Court in the case of Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom of 2 March 1987 (Series A no. 115), in order to distinguish the procedure in that case, which was found to be fair and compatible with Article 6 of the Convention, from the procedure at issue in the present case.

  • EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94
    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 34791/97
    However, it does not find it unreasonable to regard the applicant as having suffered a loss of opportunities (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 80, ECHR 1999-II), even though it is difficult to evaluate that loss.
  • EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 34791/97
    The Court observes that the right to a court, of which the right of access constitutes one aspect (see the Golder v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 18, § 36), is not absolute but may be subject to limitations; these are permitted by implication since the right of access by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and place according to the needs and resources of the community and of individuals (see the Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, pp. 24-25, § 57).
  • EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65
    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 34791/97
    Nevertheless, a State which does institute such courts is required to ensure that persons amenable to the law shall enjoy before these courts the fundamental guarantees contained in Article 6" (see the Delcourt v. Belgium judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, p. 14, § 25).
  • EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

    POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 34791/97
    Contrary to what the Court had held in the cases of Poitrimol v. France (judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-A), Omar v. France and Guérin v. France (judgments of 29 July 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-V), forfeiture was not ordered for reasons specific to the cassation proceedings, where the defendant's presence was not required, since its sole purpose was to make it easier to ensure the immediate enforcement of the impugned judgment in the event of the appeal on points of law being dismissed.
  • EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78
    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 34791/97
    The Court observes that the right to a court, of which the right of access constitutes one aspect (see the Golder v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 18, § 36), is not absolute but may be subject to limitations; these are permitted by implication since the right of access by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and place according to the needs and resources of the community and of individuals (see the Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, pp. 24-25, § 57).
  • EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

    TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 34791/97
    Furthermore, a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see, among other authorities, the following judgments: Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294-B, pp. 49-50, § 65; Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316-B, pp. 78-79, § 59; Bellet v. France, 4 December 1995, Series A no. 333-B, p. 41, § 31; and Levages Prestations Services v. France, 23 October 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1543, § 40).
  • EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

    FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 34791/97
    Furthermore, a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see, among other authorities, the following judgments: Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294-B, pp. 49-50, § 65; Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316-B, pp. 78-79, § 59; Bellet v. France, 4 December 1995, Series A no. 333-B, p. 41, § 31; and Levages Prestations Services v. France, 23 October 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1543, § 40).
  • EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 23805/94

    BELLET c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 34791/97
    Furthermore, a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see, among other authorities, the following judgments: Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294-B, pp. 49-50, § 65; Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316-B, pp. 78-79, § 59; Bellet v. France, 4 December 1995, Series A no. 333-B, p. 41, § 31; and Levages Prestations Services v. France, 23 October 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1543, § 40).
  • EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

    Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …

    Furthermore, a limitation will violate the Convention if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Golder v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, pp. 18-20, §§ 38-40, Levages Prestations Services v. France , judgment of 23 October 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1543, § 40, Brualla Gómez de la Torre v. Spain , judgment of 19 December 1997, Reports 1997-VIII; Edificaciones March Galego S.A. v. Spain , judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 290, § 34; Khalfaoui v. France , no. 34791/97, §§ 35 and 36, ECHR 1999-IX; Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, ECHR 2001-II).
  • EGMR, 23.10.2003 - 49532/99

    ABBAS contre la FRANCE

    Trois jours après le prononcé de l'arrêt Khalfaoui c. France par la Cour (arrêt du 14 décembre 1999, no 34791/97, CEDH 1999-IX), le procureur général près la Cour de cassation a adressé aux parties ayant un pourvoi en cours en matière pénale, un courrier indiquant qu'il n'y avait pas lieu de déférer à l'obligation de se mettre en état.

    Le Gouvernement insiste en premier lieu sur le fait que la présente affaire se distingue de celle qui a donné lieu à l'arrêt Khalfaoui c. France (no 34791/97, CEDH 1999-IX).

  • EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 16563/11

    ARRIBAS ANTON c. ESPAGNE

    Néanmoins, un État qui se dote de juridictions de cette nature a l'obligation de veiller à ce que les justiciables jouissent auprès d'elles des garanties fondamentales de l'article 6 (voir, mutatis mutandis, Khalfaoui c. France, no 34791/97, § 37, CEDH 1999-IX).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 02.03.1999 - 34791/97   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1999,34281
EGMR, 02.03.1999 - 34791/97 (https://dejure.org/1999,34281)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 02.03.1999 - 34791/97 (https://dejure.org/1999,34281)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 02. März 1999 - 34791/97 (https://dejure.org/1999,34281)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1999,34281) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Verfahrensgang

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht