Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KUKKONEN v. FINLAND (No. 2)

  (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

  König ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 47628/06

  This is the situation, inter alia, when the applicant cannot seize a competent court before having the lawfulness and the expediency of impugned administrative acts examined in preliminary proceedings before an administrative authority (see König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, § 98, Series A no. 27).
• EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 47628/06

  Nor is the European Court called upon to examine whether arguments are adequately met (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, § 61, Series A no. 288).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 47628/06

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• VGH der UEK, 14.11.2005 - 13/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 47628/06

  13/04/2009.
• EGMR, 11.10.2001 - 38073/97

  H.T. v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 47628/06

  The Court reiterates that special diligence is necessary in pension disputes (see H.T. v. Germany, no. 38073/97, § 37, 11 October 2001).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.04.2019 - 50053/16

  Keine Verletzung von Artikel 6 Abs. 1 EMRK (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren) durch …

  Nach Artikel 6 Abs. 1 der Konvention ist es hinnehmbar, dass übergeordnete innerstaatliche Gerichte eine Beschwerde allein unter Verweis auf die für solche Beschwerden geltenden Rechtsvorschriften zurückweisen, wenn die Rechtssache keine Rechtsfrage von grundsätzlicher Bedeutung aufwirft (siehe V. ./. Deutschland (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 65863/01, 5. Dezember 2002; J. ./. Deutschland (Entsch.) Individualbeschwerde Nr. 15073/03, 13. Februar 2007), insbesondere in Fällen, bei denen es um Anträge auf Zulassung eines Rechtsmittels geht (siehe Sawoniuk ./. das Vereinigte Königreich (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 63716/00, 29. Mai 2001; Kukkonen ./. Finnland (Nr. 2), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 47628/06, Rdnr. 24, 13.
• EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN ET AUTRES CONTRE LA FINLANDE ET 6 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  47628/06.

  47628/06.

• EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08

  TORTLADZE v. GEORGIA

  Nor does the limited reasoning given by the Supreme Court in its decision of 18 February 2008 for the rejection of the applicant's appeal raise an arguable issue (see, among many other cases, Nersesyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 15371/07, §§ 23-24, 19 January 2010; Kukkonen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 47628/06, § 24, 13 January 2009; Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 106, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts), and Jaczkó v. Hungary, no. 40109/03, § 29, 18 July 2006).

• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 15371/07

  [ENG]

  In so far as the applicant alleges that the Court of Cassation's decision of 15 January 2007 was not sufficiently reasoned, the Court has previously found in respect of leave-to-appeal proceedings that, where a supreme court refuses to accept a case on the basis that the legal grounds for such a case are not made out, very limited reasoning may satisfy the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see Nerva and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42295/98, 11 July 2000; Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI; Glender v. Sweden (dec.), no. 28070/03, 6 September 2005; Stepenska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 24079/02, 12 June 2006; Jaczkó v. Hungary, no. 40109/03, § 29, 18 July 2006; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 106, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts); Kukkonen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 47628/06, § 24, 13 January 2009; and Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009).
• EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 19312/07

  TCHAGHIASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Indeed, the Court has consistently ruled on various different occasions that, where a preliminary procedure for the examination and admission of an appeal on points of law is concerned, a domestic appellate court cannot be obliged under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to give extensive reasoning when it simply applies a specific legal provision to dismiss an appeal as having no prospects of success (see, for instance, Nersesyan, cited above, § 23 and 24; Burg and Others v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, ECHR 2003-II; Gorou v. Greece (no. 2) [GC], no. 12686/03, § 41, 20 March 2009; Stepenska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 24079/02, 12 June 2006; Glender v. Sweden (dec.), no. 28070/03, 6 September 2005; Jaczkó v. Hungary, no. 40109/03, § 29, 18 July 2006; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 106, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts); Kukkonen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 47628/06, § 24, 13 January 2009; and Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009).
• EGMR - 16831/24 (anhängig)

  TEN HOEVE v. SWEDEN and 1 other application

  In particular, did the domestic courts provide sufficient reasons for their decisions (i) on the merits (see, for example, García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 26, ECHR 1999-I, and Paun Jovanović v. Serbia, no. 41394/15, §§ 100-101, 7 February 2023, with further references); (ii) on the question of leave to appeal (see, for example, Kukkonen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 47628/06, § 24, 13 January 2009, and Hansen v. Norway, no. 15319/09, §§ 71-83, 2 October 2014, with further references); and (iii) on the requests to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU (see, for example, Harisch v. Germany, no. 50053/16, §§ 33-43, 11 April 2019; Sanofi Pasteur v. France, no. 25137/16, §§ 68-81, 13 February 2020; and Gondert v. Germany, no. 34701/21, §§ 35-47, 16 December 2025, with further references)?.
• EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 13102/04

  IMPAR LTD. v. LITHUANIA

  Again, the Court's task is only to determine whether the proceedings as a whole were fair (see, for example, Kukkonen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 47628/06, § 25, 13 January 2009).