Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 40160/12 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,7528) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ZUBAC c. CROATIE
Non-violation de l'article 6 - Droit à un procès équitable (Article 6 - Procédure civile;Article 6-1 - Accès à un tribunal) (französisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ZUBAC v. CROATIA
No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court) (englisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ZUBAC v. CROATIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 40160/12
- EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 40160/12
Wird zitiert von ... (5) Neu Zitiert selbst (12)
- EGMR, 11.01.2001 - 38460/97
PLATAKOU v. GREECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 40160/12
Similarly, the Court's role is not to resolve disputes over the interpretation of domestic law regulating such access but rather to ascertain whether the effects of such an interpretation are compatible with the Convention (see, for instance, Platakou v. Greece, no. 38460/97, §§ 37-39, ECHR 2001-I; Yagtzilar and Others v. Greece, no. 41727/98, § 25, ECHR 2001-XII; and Bulfracht Ltd v. Croatia, no. 53261/08, § 35, 21 June 2011). - EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06
STANEV c. BULGARIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 40160/12
However, the right of access to the courts 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, which regulation may vary in time and in place according to the needs and resources of the community and of individuals (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 230, ECHR 2012). - EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98
Enteignung eines Gemäldes in Tschechien auf Grund der Benes-Dekrete - …
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 40160/12
This observation is particularly true in respect of the guarantees provided for by Article 6, in view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial (see Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 45, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others, cited above, § 86).
- EGMR, 24.10.2002 - 68286/01
NAKOV v.
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 40160/12
Moreover, when confronted with issues of whether the proceedings before courts of appeal or of cassation complied with the requirements of Article 6 § 1, the Court has had regard to the extent to which the case was examined before the lower courts, the (non-)existence of issues related to the fairness of the proceedings conducted before the lower courts, and the nature of the role of the court at issue (see, for the relevant considerations, Levages Prestations Services, cited above, §§ 45-49; Brualla Gómez de la Torre, cited above, §§ 37-39; Sotiris and Nikos Koutras ATTEE v. Greece, no. 39442/98, § 22, ECHR 2000-XII; and Nakov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 68286/01, 24 October 2002). - EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 36998/02
EFSTATHIOU ET AUTRES c. GRECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 40160/12
In particular, it has held that the right of access to a court is impaired when the rules cease to serve the aims of legal certainty and the proper administration of justice and form a sort of barrier preventing the litigant from having his or her case determined on the merits by the competent court (see, for instance, Kart v. Turkey [GC], no. 8917/05, § 79 in fine, ECHR 2009 (extracts); see also Efstathiou and Others v. Greece, no. 36998/02, § 24 in fine, 27 July 2006, and Esim v. Turkey, no. 59601/09, § 21, 17 September 2013). - EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96
ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 40160/12
Thus, Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have a claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court (see Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 116, ECHR 2005-X; see also Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 91, ECHR 2001-V; Cudak v. Lithuania [GC], no. 15869/02, § 54, ECHR 2010; and Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 84, ECHR 2016 (extracts)). - EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 47273/99
BELES AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 40160/12
This usually occurs in cases of a particularly strict construction of a procedural rule, preventing an applicant's action being examined on the merits, with the attendant risk that his or her right to the effective protection of the courts would be infringed (see Beles and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 47273/99, §§ 50-51 and 69, ECHR 2002 IX, and Walchli v. France, no. 35787/03, § 29, 26 July 2007). - EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 23805/94
BELLET c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 40160/12
The right of access to a court must be "practical and effective", not "theoretical or illusory" (see, to that effect, Bellet v. France, 4 December 1995, § 36, Series A no. 333-B). - EGMR, 16.11.2000 - 39442/98
SOTIRIS ET NIKOS KOUTRAS ATTEE c. GRECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 40160/12
Moreover, when confronted with issues of whether the proceedings before courts of appeal or of cassation complied with the requirements of Article 6 § 1, the Court has had regard to the extent to which the case was examined before the lower courts, the (non-)existence of issues related to the fairness of the proceedings conducted before the lower courts, and the nature of the role of the court at issue (see, for the relevant considerations, Levages Prestations Services, cited above, §§ 45-49; Brualla Gómez de la Torre, cited above, §§ 37-39; Sotiris and Nikos Koutras ATTEE v. Greece, no. 39442/98, § 22, ECHR 2000-XII; and Nakov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 68286/01, 24 October 2002). - EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99
PEREZ c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 40160/12
The Court would also stress that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly made by a national court, unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, inter alia, García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I; and Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 82, ECHR 2004-I). - EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 31819/96
ANNONI DI GUSSOLA AND OTHERS v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08
BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 24.09.2019 - C-515/17
Generalanwalt Bobek: Das Gericht hat einen Rechtsfehler begangen, als es …
Das kommt für gewöhnlich in Fällen einer besonders restriktiven Auslegung einer Verfahrensregel vor, mit der verhindert wird, dass die Klage eines Klägers in der Sache geprüft wird, was die Gefahr mit sich bringt, dass sein Recht auf wirksamen gerichtlichen Rechtsschutz verletzt würde." EGMR, Urteil vom 5. April 2018, Zubac/Kroatien (CE:ECHR:2018:0405JUD004016012, Nrn. 97 bis 99 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung). - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 11.02.2021 - C-579/19
Food Standards Agency
Erwähnenswert ist, dass der EGMR in seiner Rechtsprechung zu Art. 6 Abs. 1 EMRK festgestellt hat, dass das Recht auf Zugang zu den Gerichten "praktisch und wirksam" sein muss und nicht "theoretisch und illusorisch" sein darf: vgl. Urteil des EGMR vom 5. April 2018, Zubac/Kroatien (CE:ECHR:2018:0405JUD004016012, Nr. 77). - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 14.07.2022 - C-682/20
Les Mousquetaires und ITM Entreprises/ Kommission
15 Vgl. EGMR, 5. April 2018, Zubac/Kroatien (CE:ECHR:2018:0405JUD004016012, Rn. 76 bis 79). - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 12.01.2023 - C-638/22
Rzecznik Praw Dziecka u.a. (Suspension de la décision de retour)
58 Vgl. zu dem Umstand, dass das Grundrecht auf einen wirksamen Rechtsbehelf nicht generell das Bestehen von mehreren gerichtlichen Instanzen gebietet, u. a. Urteil vom 26. September 2018, Belastingdienst/Toeslagen (Aufschiebende Wirkung des Rechtsmittels) (…C-175/17, EU:C:2018:776, Rn. 34 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung), und EGMR, Urteil vom 5. April 2018, Zubac/Kroatien (CE:ECHR:2018:0405JUD004016012, § 82). - EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 28239/21
MARQUILIE c. LUXEMBOURG
À ce dernier égard, la Cour rappelle que, pour se prononcer sur un grief tiré d'un formalisme excessif ayant entaché les décisions des tribunaux internes, la Cour examine en principe l'affaire dans son ensemble, eu égard aux circonstances particulières de celle-ci (Zubac c. Croatie [GC], no 40160/12, § 98, 5 avril 2018).
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 40160/12 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,32656) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ZUBAC v. CROATIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court) (englisch)
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
ZUBAC v. CROATIA
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)
Zubac v. Croatia
[12.07.2017]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 40160/12
- EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 40160/12
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 11.01.2001 - 38460/97
PLATAKOU v. GREECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 40160/12
In connection with the foregoing, the Court reiterates that the risk of any mistake made by a State authority must be borne by the State, and errors must not be remedied at the expense of the individual concerned, (see Platakou v. Greece, no. 38460/97, § 39, ECHR 2001-I; Freitag v. Germany, no. 71440/01, §§ 37-42, 19 July 2007; and Simecki, cited above, § 46).These judgments concern a decision to declare an application inadmissible as being served on the respondent party out of time, even though it had been the court bailiff's responsibility to effect service (Platakou v. Greece, no. 38460/97, § 39, ECHR 2001-I), a decision to declare a request by a party to a court inadmissible as being lodged out of time, even though the delay had mainly resulted from the conduct of another court in transferring the request to the competent court (Freitag v. Germany, no. 71440/01, § 41, 19 July 2007), a court's failure to properly serve an order, so that it became final without ever reaching the applicant, and a decision to declare an appeal against another order inadmissible as being lodged out of time, even though the court had made a mistake regarding the date on which the appeal had been lodged (Simecki v. Croatia, no. 15253/10, § 46, 30 April 2014).
- EGMR, 18.02.2009 - 55707/00
Andrejeva ./. Lettland
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 40160/12
However, where such courts do exist, the guarantees of Article 6 must be complied with, for instance in that it guarantees to litigants an effective right of access to the courts for the determination of their "civil rights and obligations" (see, among many other authorities, Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 97, ECHR 2009; Egic v. Croatia, no. 32806/09, § 46, 5 June 2014, and Shamoyan v. Armenia, no. 18499/08, § 29, 7 July 2015). - EGMR, 26.07.2002 - 32911/96
MEFTAH AND OTHERS v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 40160/12
Given the special nature of the role of cassation courts, which is limited to reviewing whether the law has been correctly applied, the Court is able to accept that the procedure followed in such courts may be more formal (see Meftah and Others v. France [GC], nos. 32911/96, 35237/97 and 34595/97, § 41, ECHR 2002-VII). - EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00
Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 40160/12
The "right to a court", of which the right of access is one aspect, is not absolute; it is subject to limitations permitted by implication, in particular where the conditions of admissibility of an appeal are concerned, since by its very nature it calls for regulation by the State, which enjoys a certain margin of appreciation in this regard (see, for example, García Manibardo v. Spain, no. 38695/97, § 36, ECHR 2000-II, Mortier v. France, no. 42195/98, § 33, 31 July 2001, and Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 92, ECHR 2004-VIII). - EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 41400/98
MONFORTE SANCHO, GARCIA MORENO, ROIG ESPERT, ROIG ESPERT ET ICARDO GARCIA contre …