Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TORMALA and OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Art. 14, Art. 13 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2004 - 41258/98

  According to the Court's case-law, Article 13 applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2004 - 41258/98

  In particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention (see Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 25, § 45).
• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99

  PEREZ c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2004 - 41258/98

  However, proceedings intended to have third parties prosecuted or sentenced for a criminal offence do not concern civil rights (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 70, 12 February 2004).
• EKMR, 08.09.1988 - 12191/86

  GINSBERGEN v. the NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2004 - 41258/98

  They refer to the following case-law: B. v. the United Kingdom (no. 10615/83, Commission decision of 3 July 1984, D.R. 38, pp. 213-215), Engel and Others v. Netherlands (judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, p. 35, § 82), Govert van Ginsbergen v. the Netherlands (no. 12191/86, Commission decision of 8 September 1988), and Pertti Kinnunen v. Finland (no. 50537/99, Committee decision of 2 October 2000).
• EKMR, 03.07.1984 - 10615/83

  B. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2004 - 41258/98

  They refer to the following case-law: B. v. the United Kingdom (no. 10615/83, Commission decision of 3 July 1984, D.R. 38, pp. 213-215), Engel and Others v. Netherlands (judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, p. 35, § 82), Govert van Ginsbergen v. the Netherlands (no. 12191/86, Commission decision of 8 September 1988), and Pertti Kinnunen v. Finland (no. 50537/99, Committee decision of 2 October 2000).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17

  RUSTAVI 2 BROADCASTING COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  268 and 275; Tormala v. Finland (dec.), no. 41258/98, 16 March 2004; Eskelinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 7274/02, 3 February 2004; Kranz v. Poland (dec.), no. 6214/02, 10 September 2002; and Skowronski v. Poland (dec.), no. 52595/99, 28 June 2001).
• EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 39544/05

  ZAGREBACKA BANKA D.D. v. CROATIA

  268 and 275; Skowronski v. Poland (dec.), no. 52595/99, 28 June 2001; Kranz v. Poland (dec.), no. 6214/02, 10 September 2002; Eskelinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 7274/02, 3 February 2004; and Tormala v. Finland (dec.), no. 41258/98, 16 March 2004).
• EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 72783/11

  THEO NATIONAL CONSTRUCT S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  The Court reiterates in this respect that proceedings concerning civil-law disputes between private parties do not engage by themselves the responsibility of the State under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (Ruiz Mateos v. the United Kingdom, no. 13021/87, Commission decision of 8 September 1988, Decisions and Reports (DR) 57 p. 268; Tormala v. Finland (dec.), no. 41258/98, 16 March 2004; Eskelinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 7274/02, 3 February 2004; Kranz v. Poland (dec.), no. 6214/02, 10 September 2002; and Skowronski v. Poland (dec.), no. 52595/99, 28 June 2001).

• EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 6169/13

  MINDEK v. CROATIA

  268 and 275; Skowronski v. Poland (dec.), no. 52595/99, 28 June 2001; Kranz v. Poland (dec.), no. 6214/02, 10 September 2002; Eskelinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 7274/02, 3 February 2004; and Tormala v. Finland (dec.), no. 41258/98, 16 March 2004).
• EGMR, 18.11.2010 - 17487/08

  [ENG]

  The proceedings in the present case concern a civil law dispute between private individuals and therefore do not themselves engage the responsibility of the State under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see mutatis mutandis, Ruiz Mateos v. the United Kingdom, no. 13021/87, Commission decision of 8 September 1988, Decisions and Reports (DR) 57, p. 268 and 275; Skowronski v. Poland (dec.), no. 52595/99, 28 June 2001; Kranz v. Poland (dec.), no. 6214/02, 10 September 2002; Eskelinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 7274/02, 3 February 2004, and Tormala v. Finland (dec.), no. 41258/98, 16 March 2004).
• EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 13224/05

  [ENG]

  To the extent that the applicants complain that the acts of the housing corporation violated their property rights, the Court finds that the applicants" complaint does not concern an interference with their Convention rights by the authorities of the respondent State, as the legal person in question was not capable of engaging the State's responsibility under Articles 1 and 34 of the Convention (see Törmälä v. Finland (dec.), no. 41258/98, 16 March 2004).