Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SUOMINEN v. FINLAND

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

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 37801/97
• EGMR, 01.07.2003 - 37801/97

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (2)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 28957/95

  Christine Goodwin ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2003 - 37801/97

  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points (see Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 124, ECHR 2002-...).
• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2003 - 37801/97

  However, the requirements inherent in the concept of "fair hearing" are not necessarily the same in cases concerning the determination of civil rights and obligations as they are in cases concerning the determination of a criminal charge (see, for example, Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, judgment of 27 October 1993, Series A no. 274, §§ 32-33).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 65518/01

  SALOV v. UKRAINE

  The lack of a reasoned decision also hindered the applicant from raising these issues at the appeal stage (see Suominen v. Finland, no. 37801/97, § 37, judgment of 1 July 2003).
• EGMR, 16.07.2024 - 41373/21

  MELI v. ALBANIA and 1 other application

  In the judicial sphere, those principles, including the proper reasoning of judgments, serve to foster public confidence in an objective and transparent justice system, one of the foundations of a democratic society (see Suominen v. Finland, no. 37801/97, § 37, 1 July 2003, and Tatishvili v. Russia, no.1509/02, § 58, ECHR 2007-I).
• EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 50054/07

  MITROFAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Similar failures to give sufficient reasons resulted in findings of violations of Article 6 of the Convention in Hiro Balani (cited above, §§ 27-28); Suominen v. Finland (no. 37801/97, §§ 34-38, 1 July 2003); Salov v. Ukraine (no. 65518/01, § 92, ECHR 2005-VIII); Popov v. Moldova (no. 2) (no. 19960/04, §§ 49-54, 6 December 2005); and Melnic v. Moldova (no. 6923/03, §§ 39-44, 14 November 2006).

• EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 6301/05

  THE ESTATE OF NITSCHKE v. SWEDEN

  The Court wishes to emphasise that the function of a reasoned judgment is to afford the parties the possibility of an effective appeal and to show to the parties that they have been heard (see, Suominen v. Finland, no. 37801/97, § 37, 1 July 2003).
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 36755/06

  [ENG]

  Similar failures to give sufficient reasons resulted in findings of violations of Article 6 of the Convention in Hiro Balani (cited above, §§ 27-28); Suominen v. Finland, no. 37801/97, §§ 34-38, 1 July 2003; Salov v. Ukraine, no. 65518/01, § 92, ECHR 2005-VIII (extracts); Popov v. Moldova (no. 2), no. 19960/04, §§ 49-54, 6 December 2005; and Melnic v. Moldova, no. 6923/03, §§ 39-44, 14 November 2006.
• EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 75894/01

  SEROV v. RUSSIA

  Furthermore, the Court reiterates that, according to its established case-law, reflecting a principle linked to the proper administration of justice, judgments of courts and tribunals should adequately state the reasons on which they are based (see, among others, Suominen v. Finland, no. 37801/97, § 34, 1 July 2003; Ruiz Torija v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-A, § 29).
• EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 73841/01

  KLEMECO NORD AB v. SWEDEN

  The Court emphasises that the function of a reasoned judgment is to afford the parties the possibility of an effective appeal and to show to the parties that they have been heard (see, Suominen v. Finland, no. 37801/97, § 37, 1 July 2003).
• EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 5493/16

  SOUKUP c. SUISSE

  La Cour a établi dans un certain nombre d'affaires, dont celles dirigées contre la Suisse, sa pratique en ce qui concerne les griefs tirés de la violation du droit à un procès équitable au motif d'un rejet insuffisamment motivé d'éléments de preuves (voir, entre autres, De Haes et Gijsels c. Belgique, 24 février 1997, §§ 57 et suiv., Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1997-I, Suominen c. Finlande, no 37801/97, § 35, 1er juillet 2003, Jaćimović c. Croatie, no 22688/09, §§ 50 et sui., 31 octobre 2013, Steiner et Steiner-Fässler c. Suisse (déc.) no 18600/13, §§ 30-33, 7 octobre 2014, et Răchită c. Roumanie, no 15987/09, §§ 56 et suiv., 17 mai 2016).
• EGMR, 23.09.2003 - 63356/00

  KERR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  However, even assuming that Article 6 were to be applicable, the Court notes that the national authorities enjoy greater latitude in the implementation of measures to ensure fairness in civil than in criminal proceedings (see, for example, Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, judgment of 27 October 1993, Series A no. 274, §§ 32-33, and more recently Suominen v. Finland, no. 37801/97, § 33, 1 July 2003).