Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KARUNA v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

  DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2007 - 43788/05

  The Court recalls that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention does not compel the Contracting States to set up courts of appeal or of cassation, but where such courts are established, the State is required to ensure that persons amenable to the law shall enjoy before these courts the fundamental guarantees contained in Article 6 § 1 (see Delcourt v. Belgium, judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, § 25; Sokurenko and Strygun v. Ukraine, nos. 29458/04 and 29465/04, § 22, 20 July 2006).
• EGMR, 08.12.1999 - 28541/95

  PELLEGRIN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2007 - 43788/05

  The Court recalls that disputes concerning pensions of former civil servants fall within the ambit of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Pellegrin v. France [GC], no. 28541/95, § 67, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2007 - 43788/05

  The Court recalls that "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 may be either "existing possessions" (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, § 48), or claims in respect of which the applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" of obtaining the effective enjoyment of a property right (see Pine Valley Developments and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 23, § 51; Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, § 31).

 
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2007 - 43788/05

  In particular, it is not the function of the Court to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court, unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see Garcia Ruiz v. Spain, [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

  PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2007 - 43788/05

  The Court recalls that "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 may be either "existing possessions" (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, § 48), or claims in respect of which the applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" of obtaining the effective enjoyment of a property right (see Pine Valley Developments and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 23, § 51; Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, § 31).
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

  PRESSOS COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2007 - 43788/05

  The Court recalls that "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 may be either "existing possessions" (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, § 48), or claims in respect of which the applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" of obtaining the effective enjoyment of a property right (see Pine Valley Developments and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 23, § 51; Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, § 31).
• EGMR, 12.10.2000 - 43440/98

  JANKOVIC c. CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2007 - 43788/05

  The Court also recalls that States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in regulating its social policy, including their right to independently regulate their pension system (see Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 18.10.2005 - 6778/05

  MPP GOLUB c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2007 - 43788/05

  "Right to a court" is not absolute, but is subject to limitations, particularly where the conditions of admissibility of an appeal are concerned (see MPP Golub v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 6778/05, ECHR 2005-...).
• EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 21291/02

  KOZAK contre UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2007 - 43788/05

  Thus, requests to re-hear cases lodged with it are akin to requests for re-opening of the proceedings (see Kozak v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21291/02, ECHR 2002-X).

• EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 60879/12

  RUPP v. GERMANY

  Artikel 6 garantiert zwar das Recht auf ein faires Verfahren, stellt aber keine Regeln über die Zulässigkeit von Beweismitteln als solche auf; diese richtet sich in erster Linie nach dem innerstaatlichem Recht (…siehe Bochan./. Ukraine (Nr. 2) [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 22251/08, Rdnr. 61, ECHR 2015; Karuna./. Ukraine (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 43788/05, 3. April 2007).
• EGMR, 25.03.2008 - 62605/00

  PETROL v. UKRAINE

  The Court reiterates that, under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, which only requires normal recourse by an applicant to remedies which are effective, sufficient and available (see, mutatis mutandis, MPP Golub v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 6778/05, ECHR 2005-..., and Karuna v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 43788/05, 3 April 2007).
• EGMR, 02.09.2008 - 42484/02

  LEBEDEV v. UKRAINE

  Under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the Court may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, which only requires normal recourse by an applicant to remedies which are effective, sufficient and available (see, mutatis mutandis, MPP Golub v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 6778/05, ECHR 2005-..., and Karuna v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 43788/05, 3 April 2007).