Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MENSHAKOVA v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 377/02

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 01.03.2002 - 48778/99

  KUTIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 377/02

  In this way it embodies the "right to a court", which, according to the Court's case-law, includes not only the right to institute proceedings but also the right to obtain a "determination" of the dispute by a court (see, for instance, Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 25, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

  GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 377/02

  "Possessions" can be either "existing possessions" or assets, including claims, in respect of which the applicants can argue that they have at least a "legitimate expectation" of obtaining effective enjoyment of a property right (see, among other authorities, Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII; Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 35, ECHR 2004-IX; Von Maltzan and Others v. Germany (dec.) [GC], nos.

 
• EGMR, 02.03.2005 - 71916/01

  Entschädigungs- und Ausgleichsleistungsgesetzes über die Wiedergutmachung von …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 377/02

  71916/01, 71917/01 and 10260/02, § 74, ECHR 2005-V; and Bata v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 43775/05, 24 June 2008).
• EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 43775/05

  BATA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 377/02

  71916/01, 71917/01 and 10260/02, § 74, ECHR 2005-V; and Bata v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 43775/05, 24 June 2008).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 377/02

  Where an individual's access is limited either by operation of law or in fact, the restriction will not be incompatible with Article 6 where the limitation does not impair the very essence of the right and where it pursues a legitimate aim, and there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 57, Series A no. 93).
• EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 46129/99

  ZVOLSKÝ AND ZVOLSKÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 377/02

  The Court underlines that in the domain of interpretation of domestic legislation, in particular, procedural rules applicable to judicial proceedings, its role is limited to verifying whether the effects of such interpretation by the domestic authorities, notably the courts, are compatible with the Convention (see Zvolský and Zvolská v. the Czech Republic, no. 46129/99, § 46, ECHR 2002-IX).

• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 25782/11

  KARDOS v. CROATIA

  In this way it embodies the "right to a court", which, according to the Court's case-law, includes not only the right to institute proceedings but also the right to obtain the "determination" of the dispute by a court (see Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 25, ECHR 2002-II, and Menshakova v. Ukraine, no. 377/02, § 52, 8 April 2010).

  If a general principle nevertheless had to be mentioned, it seems to me that it should rather have been the principle that the right to a court includes not only the right to institute proceedings (right of access) but also the right to a judicial determination of the dispute (see paragraph 48 of the judgment, referring to Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 25, ECHR 2002-II, and Menshakova v. Ukraine, no. 377/02, § 52, 8 April 2010; see the foundations of this principle in König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, § 98, Series A no. 27; Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, § 51, Series A no. 43; Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 49, Series A no. 301-B; and Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 129, ECHR 2004-II).

• EGMR, 30.04.2014 - 15253/10

  SIMECKI v. CROATIA

  The right of access to court includes not only the right to institute proceedings but also the right to obtain a judicial "determination" of the dispute (see, for example, Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 25, ECHR 2002-II; Multiplex v. Croatia, no. 58112/00, § 45, 10 July 2003; and Menshakova v. Ukraine, no. 377/02, § 52, 8 April 2010).
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38280/10

  CAMOVSKI v. CROATIA

  Relatedly, although he did have access to the Pula Municipal Court and the Pula County Court, the right to access to the Constitutional Court formed an indispensible part of the applicant's right to obtain a "determination" of his property dispute by a court (see, mutatis mutandis, Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 25, ECHR 2002-II, and Menshakova v. Ukraine, no. 377/02, § 52, 8 April 2010).

 
• EGMR, 15.06.2017 - 29545/10

  CENTRE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANALYTICAL PSYCHOLOGY v.

  In this way it embodies the "right to a court", which, according to the Court's case-law, includes not only the right to institute proceedings but also the right to obtain a "determination" of the dispute by a court (see, among other authorities, Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others, cited above, § 86; see also Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 25, ECHR 2002-II and Menshakova v. Ukraine, no. 377/02, § 52, 8 April 2010).
• EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 36998/09

  PERUSKO v. CROATIA

  In this way it embodies the "right to a court", which, according to the Court's case-law, includes not only the right to institute proceedings but also the right to obtain the "determination" of the dispute by a court (see Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 25, ECHR 2002-II, and Menshakova v. Ukraine, no. 377/02, § 52, 8 April 2010).
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 45611/13

  GREGURIC v. CROATIA

  The right of access to a court includes not only the right to institute proceedings, but also the right to obtain a judicial "determination" of the dispute (see, for example, Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 25, ECHR 2002-II; Multiplex v. Croatia, no. 58112/00, § 45, 10 July 2003; Menshakova v. Ukraine, no. 377/02, § 52, 8 April 2010; and Simecki v. Croatia, no. 15253/10, § 42, 30 April 2014).
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 51472/12

  SMOLIC v. CROATIA

  The right of access to a court includes not only the right to institute proceedings, but also the right to obtain a judicial "determination" of the dispute (see, for example, Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 25, ECHR 2002-II; Multiplex v. Croatia, no. 58112/00, § 45, 10 July 2003; Menshakova v. Ukraine, no. 377/02, § 52, 8 April 2010; and Simecki v. Croatia, no. 15253/10, § 42, 30 April 2014).
• EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 52529/12

  BRAJOVIC AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO

  The right to a court includes not only the right to institute proceedings but also the right to obtain a determination of the dispute by a court (see, for example, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, § 51, Series A no. 43; Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 25, ECHR 2002-II; Menshakova v. Ukraine, no. 377/02, § 52, 8 April 2010; Falie v. Romania, no. 23257/04, § 22, 19 May 2015; Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 86, ECHR 2016 (extracts); and Kardos v. Croatia, no. 25782/11, § 48, 26 April 2016).
• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 72252/11

  LESCIUKAITIS v. LITHUANIA

  In that way it embodies the "right to a court", which, according to the Court's case-law, includes not only the right to institute proceedings but also to obtain a "determination" of the dispute by a court (see, for instance, Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 25, ECHR 2002-II; Menshakova v. Ukraine, no. 377/02, § 52, 8 April 2010; and Kardos v. Croatia, no. 25782/11, § 48, 26 April 2016).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 44252/10

  BANICEVIC v. CROATIA

  In this way it embodies the "right to a court", which, according to the Court's case-law, includes not only the right to institute proceedings but also the right to obtain a "determination" of the dispute by a court (see Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 25, ECHR 2002-II, and Menshakova v. Ukraine, no. 377/02, § 52, 8 April 2010).