Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KRCMAR AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

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

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 27.04.1999 - 35376/97
• EGMR, 03.03.2000 - 35376/97

Wird zitiert von ... (24)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12952/87

  RUIZ-MATEOS c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2000 - 35376/97

  Moreover, according to the Court's case-law, Article 6 § 1 applies to proceedings before Constitutional Courts (see the Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain judgment of 23 June 1993, Series A no. 262, p. 18, §§ 31-32; the Süßmann v. Germany judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions, 1996-IV, p. 1172, §§ 43-45; the Pammel v. Germany judgment of 1 July 1997, Reports 1997-IV, pp. 1109-10, §§ 53-57; and the Probstmeier v. Germany judgment of 1 July 1997, Reports 1997-IV, pp. 1135-36, § 48-53).
• EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 12750/87

  PHILIS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2000 - 35376/97

  It must also be shown that the costs were actually and necessarily incurred and that they are reasonable as to quantum (see, among other authorities, the Philis v. Greece (no. 1) judgment of 27 August 1991, Series A no. 209, p. 25, § 74, and the Nikolova v. Bulgaria judgment of 25 March 1999, to be published in the Court's official reports, § 79).
• EGMR, 26.03.1992 - 11760/85

  ÉDITIONS PÉRISCOPE v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2000 - 35376/97

  The applicants had a right to claim restitution, a right which was of a pecuniary nature (see the Editions Périscope v. France judgment of 26 March 1992, Series A no. 234-B, pp. 65-66, §§ 39 and 40), and there was a serious dispute about whether they were actually entitled to restitution.

• EGMR, 07.05.2021 - 4907/18

  XERO FLOR w POLSCE sp. z o. o. - Unabhängigkeit der polnischen Gerichte

  The Court reiterates that, in accordance with its established case-law, proceedings can come within the scope of Article 6 § 1 even if they take place before a constitutional court (see Kraska v. Switzerland, 19 April 1993, § 26, Series A no. 254-B; Pauger v. Austria, 28 May 1997, § 46, Reports 1997-III; Pierre-Bloch v. France, 21 October 1997, § 48, Reports 1997-VI; Krcmár and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 35376/97, § 36, 3 March 2000; Klein v. Germany, no. 33379/96, § 26, 27 July 2000; Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X; Trickovic v. Slovenia, no. 39914/98, §§ 36-41, 12 June 2001; and Soffer v. the Czech Republic, no. 31419/04, §§ 31-32, 8 November 2007).
• EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 47169/99

  Überlange Dauer eines Verfassungsbeschwerde-Verfahrens

  Der Gerichtshof ruft auch in Erinnerung, dass seiner ständigen Rechtsprechung zufolge ein Verfahren unter Artikel 6 fällt, selbst wenn es vor einem Verfassungsgericht stattfindet (s. Rechtssache Kraska ./. Schweiz , Urteil vom 19. April 1993, Serie A Bd. 254-B, S. 48, Rdnr. 26, Pauger ./. Österreich , Urteil vom 28. Mai 1997, Urteils- und Entscheidungssammlung 1997-III, S. 894, Rdnr. 46, Pierre-Bloch ./. Frankreich , Urteil vom 21. Oktober 1997, Sammlung 1997-VI, S. 2222, Rdnr. 48, Krcmar und andere./. Tschechische Republik , Nr. 35376/97, Urteil vom 3. März 2000, Rdnr. 36, Klein ./. Deutschland , Nr. 33379/96, Urteil vom 27. Juli 2000, Rdnr. 26, Jankovic ./. Kroatien (Entsch.), Nr. 43440/98, 12. Oktober 2000, Trickovic ./. Slowenien , Nr. 39914/98, Urteil vom 12. Juni 2001, Rdnr. 36-41 und Diaz Aparicio ./. Spanien , Nr. 49468/99, Urteil vom 11. Oktober 2001).
• EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 13645/05

  COOPERATIEVE PRODUCENTENORGANISATIE VAN DE NEDERLANDSE KOKKELVISSERIJ U.A. v. THE …

  Elle cite à cet égard les arrêts Mantovanelli c. France (18 mars 1997, § 36, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1997-II) et Krcmár et autres c. République tchèque (no 35376/97, § 45, 3 mars 2000), dans lesquels la Cour a conclu à la violation de l'article 6 § 1 au motif que les requérants n'avaient pas eu la possibilité de commenter des preuves documentaires.

 
• EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 48173/18

  CANGI AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE

  This means that parties to proceedings must have the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the evidence before the court, as well as the opportunity to comment on its existence, content and authenticity in an appropriate form and within an appropriate time, if need be, in writing and in advance (see Krcmár and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 35376/97, § 42, 3 March 2000, and Colloredo Mannsfeld v. the Czech Republic, nos.
• EGMR, 16.02.2016 - 27236/05

  YEVDOKIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Thus, the questions of personal presence, the form of the proceedings - oral or written - and legal representation are interlinked and must be analysed in the broader context of the "fair trial" guarantee of Article 6. The Court should establish whether the applicant, a party to the civil proceedings, had been given a reasonable opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations made or evidence adduced by the other party and to present his case under conditions that did not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent (see Siwiec v. Poland, no. 28095/08, § 47, 3 July 2012; Larin v. Russia, no. 15034/02, §§ 35-36, 20 May 2010; Krcmár and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 35376/97, § 39, 3 March 2000, and Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274).
• EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 5386/10

  ZAYIDOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

  The Court's assessment 85. The Court reiterates that the principle of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms, which is one of the elements of the broader concept of a fair hearing, requires that each party be given a reasonable opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations made or evidence adduced by the other party, and to present his or her case under conditions that do not place him or her at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his or her opponent (see Krcmár and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 35376/97, § 39, 3 March 2000, and Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274).
• EGMR, 05.09.2013 - 9815/10

  CEPEK c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

  Ce principe vaut pour les observations et pièces présentées par les parties, mais aussi pour celles présentées par un magistrat indépendant tel que le commissaire du Gouvernement (actuellement rapporteur public) (Kress c. France [GC], no 39594/98, CEDH 2001-VI), par une administration (Krcmár et autres c. République tchèque, no 35376/97, 3 mars 2000) ou par la juridiction auteur du jugement entrepris (Nideröst-Huber c. Suisse, 18 février 1997, Recueil 1997-I).
• EGMR, 09.02.2012 - 42856/06

  KINSKÝ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Also, to be awarded costs and expenses for proceedings before domestic courts an applicant must have incurred them in order to seek to prevent or rectify a violation of the Convention which has been established by the Court (see Krcmár and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 35376/97, § 52, 3 March 2000).
• EGMR, 27.10.2016 - 8001/07

  VARDANYAN AND NANUSHYAN v. ARMENIA

  Thus, the questions of personal presence, the form of the proceedings - oral or written - and legal representation are interlinked and must be analysed in the broader context of the "fair trial" guarantee of Article 6. The Court should establish whether the applicant, a party to the civil proceedings, had been given a reasonable opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations made or evidence adduced by the other party and to present his case under conditions that did not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent (see Krcmár and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 35376/97, § 39, 3 March 2000; Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274).
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 58590/11

  ZAHIROVIC v. CROATIA

  However, whatever method is chosen, it should ensure that the other party will be aware that observations have been filed and will have a real opportunity to comment on them (see Brandstetter v. Austria, 28 August 1991, §§ 66-67, Series A no. 211; Milatová and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 61811/00, § 65, ECHR 2005-V; and, a fortiori, Krcmár and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 35376/97, §§ 41-45, 3 March 2000; and OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia, no. 14902/04, § 538, 20 September 2011).
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 2430/06

  GANKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 36084/06

  PASHAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 3189/07

  OLGA NAZARENKO c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 36122/06

  NATIG MIRZAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 31419/04

  SOFFER c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12

  LONIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 21724/03

  OOO 'VESTI' AND UKHOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 28245/04

  MOKHOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 61811/14

  SEREDYNSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 23.10.2006 - 9457/03

  BACA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
• EGMR, 04.02.2021 - 68188/13

  VOROTNIKOVA v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 12532/05

  CIMOLINO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 39279/04

  PENA ALVAREZ c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 37/06

  PLESHCHINSKIY v. RUSSIA