Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RÓZSA v. HUNGARY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 11.05.2010 - 29061/08

  STECK-RISCH AND OTHERS v. LIECHTENSTEIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2015 - 53815/11

  Therefore, the issue in question is entirely rooted in the unfairness of the original civil proceedings (see Steck-Risch and Others v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 29061/08, 11 May 2010).
• EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2015 - 53815/11

  On the contrary, such procedures may be regarded as an important aspect of the execution of its judgments and their availability demonstrates a Contracting State's commitment to the Convention and to the Court's case-law (see, mutatis mutandis, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain (Article 50), 13 June 1994, § 15, Series A no. 285-C).
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2015 - 53815/11

  However, complaints of a failure either to execute the Court's judgment or to redress a violation already found by the Court fall outside the Court's competence ratione materiae (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 35, 5 February 2015).
• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 32772/02

  Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2015 - 53815/11

  Furthermore, to the extent that the applicants" arguments may be understood to concern a further breach of the Convention, namely, that the domestic proceedings leading to the rejection of their request for reopening were unfair, this being the second aspect of the application, the Court reiterates that the Committee of Ministers" role in the sphere of execution of the Court's judgments does not prevent it from examining a fresh application concerning measures taken by a respondent State in execution of a judgment if that application contains relevant new information in relation to issues undecided by the initial judgment (see Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, §§ 61-63, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 30789/05

  FERENC ROZSA AND ISTVAN ROZSA v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2015 - 53815/11

  In its judgment of 28 April 2009 in the case of Ferenc Rózsa and István Rózsa v. Hungary (no. 30789/05), the Court found that the respondent Government had breached the applicants" right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, since the authorities had excluded their ability to bring an action in damages against the domestic courts which had ordered the allegedly unlawful liquidation of their company.

• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 26290/12

  BURDIASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  However, even assuming that the Court has jurisdiction in the present case to verify whether or not the respondent State has complied with its obligations under Article 46 of the Convention (compare with Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 35, ECHR 2015; Egmez v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 12214/07, § 50, 18 September 2012; Kudeshkina v. Russia (no. 2) (dec.), no. 28727/11, §§ 74-81, 17 February 2015; Rózsa v. Hungary (dec.), no. 53815/11, § 15, 7 April 2015; Harabin v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 33800/14, § 31, 2 June 2015; Meltex Ltd v. Armenia (dec.), no. 45199/09, §§ 37-41, 21 May 2013; Costica Moldovan and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 8229/04, §§ 125-127, 15 February 2011; Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 5980/07, 6 July 2010; Krcmár and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 69190/01, 30 March 2004, and Lyons and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 15227/03, ECHR 2003-IX), the Court cannot enter into a discussion of whether or not the legislative Amendments of 19 April 2011 have sufficiently remedied the situation exposed in its judgment of 2 February 2010 in the case of Klaus and Yuri Kiladze.