Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BELAN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 13 MRK
  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 56786/00

  A waiver can be made explicitly or tacitly, in the latter case for example by refraining from submitting or maintaining a request for a hearing (see, among other authorities, Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 171-A, p. 20, § 66; Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, pp. 19-20, § 58).
• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

  SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 56786/00

  A waiver can be made explicitly or tacitly, in the latter case for example by refraining from submitting or maintaining a request for a hearing (see, among other authorities, Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 171-A, p. 20, § 66; Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, pp. 19-20, § 58).
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 56786/00

  However, the absence of a hearing before a second or third instance may be justified by the special features of the proceedings at issue, provided a hearing has been held at first instance (see, for instance, Helmers v. Sweden, judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-A, p. 16, § 36).
• EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 28394/95

  DÖRY v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 56786/00

  Furthermore, a hearing may not be necessary due to exceptional circumstances of the case, for example when it raises no questions of fact or law which cannot be adequately resolved on the basis of the case-file and the parties' written observations (see Döry v. Sweden, no. 28394/95, § 37, 12 November 2002, with further references).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.02.2016 - 27236/05

  [ENG]

  Any party may, as a matter of course, waive this right of his or her own free will and there will be no breach of the fair-hearing principle under Article 6 of the Convention as long as the waiver has been established in an unequivocal manner (see Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 86, ECHR 2006-II; Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, §§ 105-09, 21 December 2010; and Belan v. Russia (dec.), no. 56786/00, 2 September 2004).
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03

  GLADKIY v. RUSSIA

  Furthermore, it cannot overlook the demands of efficiency and economy that are to be met by the national authorities in the administration of justice (see, for similar reasons, Belan v. Russia (dec.), no. 56786/00, 2 September 2004).
• EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 16115/13

  MARGARETIC v. CROATIA

  At the same time no factual issues between the parties were in dispute which required the Osijek Administrative Court to hear witnesses or take other oral evidence (compare Saccoccia v. Austria, no. 69917/01, § 79, 18 December 2008, and Belan v. Russia (dec.), no. 56786/00, 2 September 2004) nor was the applicant's claim, by its nature, based on the details of his personal experience, but on the allegations of the erroneous application of the relevant law by the Ministry of the Interior (see, by contrast, Kovalev v. Russia, no. 78145/01, § 37, 10 May 2007).

• EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 21724/03

  OOO 'VESTI' AND UKHOV v. RUSSIA

  However, he failed to act with reasonable diligence and take the necessary steps to ensure that his case was effectively presented before the court (see, for similar reasoning, Milovanova v. Ukrain (dec.), no. 16411/03, 2 October 2007, and Belan v. Russia (dec.), no. 56786/00, 2 September 2004).
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 74286/01

  LARINE ET LARINA c. RUSSIE

  A cet égard, la Cour attache de l'importance au fait que, lors de son examen, la cour régionale de Vladimir, instance de cassation, n'était pas limitée aux seuls points de droit (Belan c. Russie (déc.), no 56786/00, 2 septembre 2004).
• EGMR, 01.03.2012 - 15226/05

  [ENG]

  Moreover, they did not submit any documents to demonstrate that the summons had, in fact, been sent to the applicants or their lawyer, such as copies of the summons, acknowledgments of receipt, envelopes bearing postmarks, a checklist of the case-file or any other record confirming the fact of actual dispatching of the notifications to the applicants or their representative (see, by contrast, Belan v. Russia (dec.), no. 56786/00, 2 September 2004, and Bogonos v. Russia, cited above).
• EGMR, 15.05.2007 - 3040/03

  BABUNIDZE v. RUSSIA

  In this respect, having regard to the applicant's behaviour in the course of the proceedings before the District Court and, in particular, his numerous motions to adjourn, the Court cannot overlook the demands of efficiency and economy that are to be met by the national authorities in the administration of justice (see Belan v. Russia (dec.), no. 56786/00, 2 September 2004).
• EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 43852/12

  BELYAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Therefore, the applicant waived in an unequivocal manner his right to be present at the first-instance court hearing on 11 August 2011 (see Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, §§ 105-09, 21 December 2010, and Belan v. Russia (dec.), no. 56786/00, 2 September 2004).
• EGMR, 23.05.2006 - 71676/01

  SARNATSKAYA v. RUSSIA

  Having regard to the foregoing, the Court finds that the applicant was properly summoned for the appeal hearing (cf. Belan v. Russia (dec.), no. 56786/00, 2 September 2004).
• EGMR, 01.04.2014 - 14803/05

  [ENG]

  In this respect, the Court considers that the supervisory-review court could adequately resolve this issue on the basis of the case-file and the applicant's representative's written submission (see, mutatis mutandis, Belan v. Russia (dec.) no. 56786/00, 2 September 2004).
• EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 23377/02

  MOKRUSHINA v. RUSSIA