Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 40765/02 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,45131) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
APOSTOL c. GEORGIE
Art. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 17, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Violation de l'art. 6-1 Partiellement irrecevable (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
APOSTOL v. GEORGIA
Art. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 17, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 40765/02
- EGMR, 06.09.2017 - 40765/02
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (15)
- EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98
MAESTRI c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 40765/02
Consequently, it is for the respondent State to remove any obstacles in its domestic legal system that might prevent the applicant's situation from being adequately redressed (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 198, ECHR 2004-II, and Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 47, ECHR 2004-I). - EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01
ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 40765/02
Consequently, it is for the respondent State to remove any obstacles in its domestic legal system that might prevent the applicant's situation from being adequately redressed (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 198, ECHR 2004-II, and Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 47, ECHR 2004-I). - EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 26083/94
WAITE AND KENNEDY v. GERMANY
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 40765/02
Furthermore, a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, § 59, ECHR 1999-I).
- EGMR, 14.10.1999 - 37680/97
RIERA BLUME AND OTHERS v. SPAIN
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 40765/02
Such a constitutional complaint also makes it possible to remedy violations resulting immediately and directly from an act or omission of a judicial body, regardless of the facts that had given rise to the proceedings; the abrogation of an unconstitutional law results in the annulment of all the final decisions made by the courts or public authorities on the basis of that law (see Riera Blume and Others v. Spain (dec.), no. 37680/97, ECHR 1999-II, and Voggenreiter v. Germany, no. 47169/99, § 23, ECHR 2004-I). - EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 47169/99
Überlange Dauer eines Verfassungsbeschwerde-Verfahrens
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 40765/02
Such a constitutional complaint also makes it possible to remedy violations resulting immediately and directly from an act or omission of a judicial body, regardless of the facts that had given rise to the proceedings; the abrogation of an unconstitutional law results in the annulment of all the final decisions made by the courts or public authorities on the basis of that law (see Riera Blume and Others v. Spain (dec.), no. 37680/97, ECHR 1999-II, and Voggenreiter v. Germany, no. 47169/99, § 23, ECHR 2004-I). - EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 66561/01
MERIT v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 40765/02
Only after this burden of proof has been discharged does it fall to the applicant to prove that there existed special circumstances absolving him or her from the requirement (see Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, § 57, 30 March 2004). - EGMR, 03.03.2005 - 60861/00
MANOILESCU AND DOBRESCU v. ROMANIA AND RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 40765/02
In so far as enforcement proceedings constitute an integral part of the trial (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 34, ECHR 2002-III), the Court considers that the right to a court, along with access to first-instance and appeal courts for the determination of "civil rights and obligations" (see Kreuz v. Poland (no. 1), no. 28249/95, §§ 53-54, ECHR 2001-VI), likewise protects the right of access to enforcement proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, Manoilescu and Dobrescu v. Romania and Russia (dec.), no. 60861/00, ECHR 2005-VI), that is, the right to have enforcement proceedings initiated. - EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 71152/01
BARSZCZ v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 40765/02
The Court reiterates that, under Article 35 of the Convention, normal recourse should be had by an applicant to remedies which are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged (see Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01, § 41, 30 May 2006). - EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75529/01
Verschleppter Prozess - Mann prozessiert seit 16 Jahren um Entschädigung nach …
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 40765/02
The "specific" constitutional complaint existing in those countries makes it possible to remedy violations of rights and freedoms committed by authorities or officials or, where the infringement of a right guaranteed by the Constitution is the result of an interference other than a decision, to prohibit the authority concerned from continuing to infringe the right and to order it to re-establish the status quo if that is possible (see Hartman v. the Czech Republic, no. 53341/99, § 49, ECHR 2003-VIII, and Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 62, ECHR 2006-VII). - EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 40765/02
The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his or her civil rights and obligations brought before a court (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, §§ 28-36, Series A no. 18). - EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75
DEWEER c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91
TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76
VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 28249/95
KREUZ c. POLOGNE
- EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 51585/99
HORVAT v. CROATIA
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 06.09.2017 - 40765/02 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,34413) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
APOSTOL CONTRE LA GÉORGIE
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
APOSTOL AGAINST GEORGIA
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 40765/02
- EGMR, 06.09.2017 - 40765/02
Wird zitiert von ... (5)
- EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 10755/13
UZUN c. TURQUIE
b) le fait que le recours constitutionnel offre un remède aux violations trouvant leur origine immédiate et directe dans un acte ou une omission d'un organe judiciaire, indépendamment des faits qui ont donné lieu à la procédure (Apostol c. Géorgie, no 40765/02, § 42, CEDH 2006-XIV, et les références qui y figurent ; Hartman c. République tchèque, no 53341/99, § 49, CEDH 2003-VIII, Sürmeli, précité, § 62, Riera Blume et autres c. Espagne (déc.), no 37680/97, CEDH 1999-II, et Voggenreiter c. Allemagne, no 47169/99, § 23, CEDH 2004-I). - EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 68490/01
STANKOV v. BULGARIA
La Cour a déjà souligné en diverses occasions qu'une limitation au droit d'accès à un tribunal ne se concilie avec l'article 6 § 1 que si elle poursuit un but légitime et s'il existe un rapport raisonnable de proportionnalité entre les moyens employés et le but visé (voir, par exemple, Tinnelly & Sons Ltd et autres et McElduff et autres c. Royaume-Uni, 10 juillet 1998, § 72, Recueil 1998-IV ; et Apostol c. Géorgie, no 40765/02, CEDH 2006-...). - EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 67957/12
C.M. c. BELGIQUE
À cet égard, la Cour rappelle avoir déjà considéré dans une autre affaire qu'en transférant sur le titulaire du droit d'accès à un tribunal la responsabilité de la charge financière de l'organisation de la procédure d'exécution, l'État tentait de se soustraire à son obligation positive d'organiser un système d'exécution des jugements qui soit effectif en droit comme en pratique (Apostol c. Géorgie, no 40765/02, § 64, CEDH 2006-XIV). - EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 17767/08
KHONIAKINA v. GEORGIA
The Court reiterates that it has already found the lodging of an individual constitutional complaint in Georgia to be an ineffective remedy for the purposes of Article 35 of the Convention, mainly on account of the Constitutional Court's inability to set aside individual decisions by the public authorities or courts which directly affect the complainant's rights (see Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, §§ 41-47, ECHR 2006-XIV). - EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 64215/01
DE TRANA c. ITALIE
Compte tenu des éléments en sa possession, la Cour considère que la façon la plus appropriée de redresser les violations constatées en l'espèce est de mettre aussitôt terme à la situation de non-exécution (voir, Plotnikovy c. Russie, no 43883/02, § 33, 24 février 2005 ; Apostol c. Géorgie, no 40765/02, §§ 71-73, CEDH 2006-...).