Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SCORDINO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE (N° 1)

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Recevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SCORDINO AND OTHERS v. ITALY (No. 1)

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Admissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 36813/97
• EGMR, 29.07.2004 - 36813/97
• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 36813/97

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 36813/97

  Moreover, the conditions for lodging an application are not necessarily the same as national criteria relating to locus standi (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 138, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 36813/97

  Only when those two conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude examination of an application (see Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 32, §§ 69 et seq., and Jensen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X).
• EKMR, 03.05.1988 - 12719/87

  FREDERIKSEN c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 36813/97

  The Court accordingly considers that an applicant's status as a victim may depend on compensation being awarded at domestic level on the basis of the facts about which he or she complains before the Court (see Andersen v. Denmark, no. 12860/87, and Frederiksen and Others v. Denmark, no. 12719/87, Commission decisions of 3 May 1988; Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; and Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003) and on whether the domestic authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention.

 
• EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

  LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 36813/97

  Relying on the Court's judgments in The Holy Monasteries v. Greece (judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-A), Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102), and James and Others v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98), the Government submitted that the present case should be examined in the light of the principle that public-interest grounds (such as economic reform or policies designed to promote social justice) could militate in favour of awarding compensation below the full market value.
• EKMR, 03.05.1988 - 12860/87

  ANDERSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 36813/97

  The Court accordingly considers that an applicant's status as a victim may depend on compensation being awarded at domestic level on the basis of the facts about which he or she complains before the Court (see Andersen v. Denmark, no. 12860/87, and Frederiksen and Others v. Denmark, no. 12719/87, Commission decisions of 3 May 1988; Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; and Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003) and on whether the domestic authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention.
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 26083/94

  WAITE AND KENNEDY v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 36813/97

  The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 18, § 36, and Waite and Kennedy v. Germany ï�?GCï��, no. 26083/94, § 50, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

  Schießbefehl

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 36813/97

  While it is primarily for the national authorities to interpret and apply domestic law, the Court is in any event required to verify whether the way in which domestic law is interpreted and applied produces consequences that are consistent with the principles of the Convention (see Carbonara and Ventura v. Italy, no. 24638/94, § 68, ECHR 2000-VI, and Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany ï�?GCï��, nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 49, ECHR 2001-II), of which the Court's case-law is an integral part.
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 36813/97

  The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 18, § 36, and Waite and Kennedy v. Germany ï�?GCï��, no. 26083/94, § 50, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

  BRUSCO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 36813/97

  The Court points out that in recent cases concerning claims lodged with courts of appeal (see Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX, and Di Cola and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 44897/98, 11 October 2001) it held that the remedy introduced by the Pinto Act was accessible and that there was no reason to question its effectiveness.
• EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 28957/95

  Christine Goodwin ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 36813/97

  Although there is no formal obligation on Contracting States to incorporate the Convention in their domestic legal system (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, p. 48, § 86, and Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 113, ECHR 2002-VI), it follows from the principle of subsidiarity outlined above that the national courts must, where possible, interpret and apply domestic law in accordance with the Convention.
• EGMR, 10.05.2017 - 31524/96

  BELVEDERE ALBERGHIERA SRL AND 106 OTHER CASES AGAINST ITALY

• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64705/01

  GIUSEPPE MOSTACCIUOLO v. ITALY (No. 1)

  - que la différence entre les critères de calcul [entre la jurisprudence de la Cour et l'article 2 de la loi Pinto] ne touche pas à la capacité globale de la loi no 89 de 2001 à garantir une réparation sérieuse pour la violation du droit à un procès dans une durée raisonnable (capacité reconnue par la Cour européenne, entre autres, dans une décision du 27 mars 2003 rendue dans la requête no 36813/97 Scordino c. Italie), et donc n'autorise aucun doute sur la compatibilité de cette norme interne avec les engagements internationaux pris par la République italienne par le biais de la ratification de la Convention européenne et la reconnaissance formelle, également au niveau constitutionnel, du principe énoncé à l'article 6 § 1 de ladite Convention (...) ".

  Selon lui, c'est à tort que la Cour, dans sa décision Scordino c. Italie ((déc.), no 36813/97, CEDH 2003-IV), a déclaré que le recours en cassation n'était pas une voie de recours interne à épuiser car dans ses arrêts la Cour de cassation a toujours considéré les griefs relatifs à la mesure de l'indemnité comme relevant de l'appréciation des faits, réservés à la compétence du juge du fond.

  Enfin, se référant également aux informations fournies lors de l'audience en l'affaire Scordino (no 36813/97) le même jour, le Gouvernement a expliqué que le montant de la ligne budgétaire attribué à la loi Pinto s'étant avéré insuffisant en 2002 et 2003, 1a somme avait été augmentée en 2004 et 2005.

• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 65102/01

  GIUSEPPE MOSTACCIUOLO v. ITALY (No. 2)

  - a discrepancy in the method of calculation [between the Court's case-law and section 2 of the Pinto Act] shall not affect the general vocation of Law no. 89 of 2001 to meet the objective of awarding proper compensation for a breach of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (vocation acknowledged by the European Court in, inter alia, a decision of 27 March 2003 in Scordino v. Italy (application no. 36813/97)), and accordingly shall not allow any doubt as to the compatibility of that domestic standard with the international commitments entered into by the Italian Republic when ratifying the European Convention and the formal recognition, also at constitutional level, of the principle of Article 6 § 1 of that Convention...".

  In the Government's submission, the Court had erred in its decision Scordino v. Italy ((dec.), no. 36813/97, ECHR 2003-IV) in finding that, as the Court of Cassation had always held that complaints about the amount of compensation related to questions of fact, which fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the lower courts, an appeal on points of law was not a remedy that had to be exhausted Admittedly, the Court of Cassation, which examined points of law, could not superimpose its own assessment of questions relating to the merits or the assessment of the facts and evidence on those of the lower courts.

  Lastly, referring also to the information provided at the hearing in the Scordino case (no. 36813/97) the same day, the Government explained that as the amount earmarked in the budget in respect of Pinto cases had been insufficient in 2002 and 2003 it had been increased in 2004 and 2005.

• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 65075/01

  GIUSEPPINA AND ORESTINA PROCACCINI v. ITALY

  - a discrepancy in the method of calculation [between the Court's case-law and section 2 of the Pinto Act] shall not affect the general vocation of Law no. 89 of 2001 to meet the objective of awarding proper compensation for a breach of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (vocation acknowledged by the European Court in, inter alia, a decision of 27 March 2003 in Scordino v. Italy (application no. 36813/97)), and accordingly shall not allow any doubt as to the compatibility of that domestic standard with the international commitments entered into by the Italian Republic when ratifying the European Convention and the formal recognition, also at constitutional level, of the principle stated in Article 6 § 1 of that Convention...".

  In the Government's submission, the Court had erred in its decision Scordino v. Italy (dec.), no. 36813/97, ECHR 2003-IV) in finding that, as the Court of Cassation had always held that complaints about the amount of compensation related to questions of fact, which fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the lower courts, an appeal on points of law was not a remedy that had to be exhausted Admittedly, the Court of Cassation, which examined points of law, could not superimpose its own assessment of questions relating to the merits or the assessment of the facts and evidence on those of the lower courts.

  Lastly, referring also to the information provided at the hearing in the Scordino case (no. 36813/97) the same day, the Government explained that as the amount earmarked in the budget in respect of Pinto cases had been insufficient in 2002 and 2003 it had been increased in 2004 and 2005.

 
• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64699/01

  MUSCI v. ITALY

  - a discrepancy in the method of calculation [between the Court's case-law and section 2 of the Pinto Act] shall not affect the general vocation of Law no. 89 of 2001 to meet the objective of awarding proper compensation for a breach of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (vocation acknowledged by the European Court in, inter alia, a decision of 27 March 2003 in Scordino v. Italy (application no. 36813/97)), and accordingly shall not allow any doubt as to the compatibility of that domestic standard with the international commitments entered into by the Italian Republic when ratifying the European Convention and the formal recognition, also at constitutional level, of the principle stated in Article 6 § 1 of that Convention...".

  In the Government's submission, the Court had erred in its decision Scordino v. Italy (dec.), no. 36813/97, ECHR 2003-IV) in finding that, as the Court of Cassation had always held that complaints about the amount of compensation related to questions of fact, which fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the lower courts, an appeal on points of law was not a remedy that had to be exhausted Admittedly, the Court of Cassation, which examined points of law, could not superimpose its own assessment of questions relating to the merits or the assessment of the facts and evidence on those of the lower courts.

  Lastly, referring also to the information provided at the hearing in the Scordino case (no. 36813/97) the same day, the Government explained that as the amount earmarked in the budget in respect of Pinto cases had been insufficient in 2002 and 2003 it had been increased in 2004 and 2005.

• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64890/01

  APICELLA v. ITALY

  - a discrepancy in the method of calculation [between the Court's case-law and section 2 of the Pinto Act] shall not affect the general vocation of Law no. 89 of 2001 to meet the objective of awarding proper compensation for a breach of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (vocation acknowledged by the European Court in, inter alia, a decision of 27 March 2003 in Scordino v. Italy (application no. 36813/97)), and accordingly shall not allow any doubt as to the compatibility of that domestic standard with the international commitments entered into by the Italian Republic when ratifying the European Convention and the formal recognition, also at constitutional level, of the principle stated in Article 6 § 1 of that Convention...".

  In the Government's submission, the Court had erred in its decision Scordino v. Italy (dec.), no. 36813/97, ECHR 2003-IV) in finding that, as the Court of Cassation had always held that complaints about the amount of compensation related to questions of fact, which fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the lower courts, an appeal on points of law was not a remedy that had to be exhausted Admittedly, the Court of Cassation, which examined points of law, could not superimpose its own assessment of questions relating to the merits or the assessment of the facts and evidence on those of the lower courts.

  Lastly, referring also to the information provided at the hearing in the Scordino case (no. 36813/97) the same day, the Government explained that as the amount earmarked in the budget in respect of Pinto cases had been insufficient in 2002 and 2003 it had been increased in 2004 and 2005.

• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 64886/01

  COCCHIARELLA v. ITALY

  - a discrepancy in the method of calculation [between the Court's case-law and section 2 of the Pinto Act] shall not affect the general vocation of Law no. 89/2001 to meet the objective of awarding proper compensation for a breach of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (vocation acknowledged by the European Court in, inter alia, a decision of 27 March 2003 in Scordino v. Italy (application no. 36813/97)), and accordingly shall not allow any doubt as to the compatibility of that domestic standard with the international commitments entered into by the Italian Republic when ratifying the European Convention and the formal recognition, also at constitutional level, of the principle stated in Article 6 § 1 of that Convention...".

  In the Government's submission, the Court had erred in its decision in Scordino v. Italy ((dec.), no. 36813/97, ECHR 2003-IV) in finding that, as the Court of Cassation had always held that complaints about the amount of compensation related to questions of fact, which fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the lower courts, an appeal on points of law was not a remedy that had to be exercised.

• EGMR, 27.01.2004 - 62457/00

  CARLETTI et BONETTI contre l'ITALIE

  Le droit et la pratique internes pertinents sont décrits dans la décision Scordino c. Italie du 27 mars 2003 (no 36813/97, CEDH 2003).

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SCORDINO c. ITALIE (N° 1)

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Exception préliminaire rejetée (non-épuisement des voies de recours internes) Violation de l'art. 6-1 en ce qui concerne la durée de la procédure Violation de l'art. 6-1 en ce qui concerne l'équité de la procédure Violation de P1-1 Dommage matériel - réparation ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SCORDINO v. ITALY (No. 1)

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 6-1 as regard the length of proceedings Violation of Art. 6-1 as regard the fairness of the proceedings Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - financial award Just satisfaction ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 36813/97
• EGMR, 29.07.2004 - 36813/97
• EGMR, 29.03.2006 - 36813/97

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 31423/96

  PAPACHELAS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2004 - 36813/97

  Having regard to the margin of appreciation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 affords national authorities, the Court considers that the price paid to the applicants did not bear a reasonable relation to the value of the expropriated property (see Papachelas v. Greece [GC], no. 31423/96, § 49, ECHR 1999-II, and Platakou v. Greece, no. 38460/97, § 54, ECHR 2001-I).
• EGMR, 11.01.2001 - 38460/97

  PLATAKOU v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2004 - 36813/97

  Having regard to the margin of appreciation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 affords national authorities, the Court considers that the price paid to the applicants did not bear a reasonable relation to the value of the expropriated property (see Papachelas v. Greece [GC], no. 31423/96, § 49, ECHR 1999-II, and Platakou v. Greece, no. 38460/97, § 54, ECHR 2001-I).
• EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

  LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2004 - 36813/97

  Relying on the Court's judgments in The Holy Monasteries v. Greece (judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-A), Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102), and James and Others v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98), the Government submitted that the present case should be examined in the light of the principle that public-interest grounds (such as economic reform or policies designed to promote social justice) could militate in favour of awarding compensation below the full market value.

 
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2004 - 36813/97

  The Court reiterates that interference with the right to respect for possessions must strike a "fair balance" between the demands of the general interest and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, § 69).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 34884/97

  BOTTAZZI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2004 - 36813/97

  The Court reiterates its finding in four judgments of 28 July 1999 (see, for example, Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], no. 34884/97, § 22, ECHR 1999-V), that in Italy there is a practice that is incompatible with the Convention resulting from an accumulation of breaches of the "reasonable-time" requirement.
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 24846/94

  ZIELINSKI ET PRADAL & GONZALEZ ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2004 - 36813/97

  The Court reaffirms that while in principle the legislature is not precluded in civil matters from enacting new retrospective provisions to regulate rights arising under existing laws, the principle of the rule of law and the notion of fair trial enshrined in Article 6 preclude any interference by the legislature - other than on compelling grounds of the general interest - with the administration of justice designed to influence the judicial determination of a dispute (see Zielinski and Pradal & Gonzalez and Others v. France [GC], nos. 24846/94 and 34165/96 to 34173/96, § 57, ECHR 1999-VII; Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B; and Papageorgiou v. Greece, judgment of 22 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI).
• EGMR, 07.11.2000 - 39374/98

  ANAGNOSTOPOULOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2004 - 36813/97

  In the instant case the Court considers that, even though the proceedings were not set aside under Law no. 359/1992, the Law in question did influence the judicial determination of the dispute (see Anagnostopoulos and Others v. Greece, no. 39374/98, § 20-21, ECHR 2000-XI), to which the State was a party.
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10522/83

  Mellacher u.a. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2004 - 36813/97

  Accordingly, it is the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which applies in the present case (see Mellacher and Others v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 169, § 42).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2004 - 36813/97

  The Court reaffirms that while in principle the legislature is not precluded in civil matters from enacting new retrospective provisions to regulate rights arising under existing laws, the principle of the rule of law and the notion of fair trial enshrined in Article 6 preclude any interference by the legislature - other than on compelling grounds of the general interest - with the administration of justice designed to influence the judicial determination of a dispute (see Zielinski and Pradal & Gonzalez and Others v. France [GC], nos. 24846/94 and 34165/96 to 34173/96, § 57, ECHR 1999-VII; Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B; and Papageorgiou v. Greece, judgment of 22 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI).