Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BUZESCU v. ROMANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 18.11.2003 - 61302/00
• EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 61302/00

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (18)

• EGMR, 09.11.1999 - 37595/97

  Rücknahme der Zulassung als Rechtsanwalt auf Grund vorheriger Tätigkeit als …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 61302/00

  The applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 however extends to law practices and their goodwill, as these are entities of a certain worth that have in many respects the nature of private rights, and thus constitute assets, being possessions within the meaning of the first sentence of this provision (see Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 June 1986, Series A no. 101, p. 13, § 41, and Döring v. Germany (dec.), no. 37595/97, ECHR 1999-VIII; see also Wendenburg and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 71630/01, ECHR 2003-II).

  This was a measure entailing control of the use of his property, which falls to be considered under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Tre Traktörer AB v. Sweden, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 159, p. 22, § 55, and Döring v. Germany (dec.), no. 37595/97, ECHR 1999-VIII).

• EGMR, 01.06.2004 - 45027/98

  NARINEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 61302/00

  It follows that, in accordance with its case-law, it cannot make an award under this head in respect of the hours the applicant himself spent working on the case, as this time does not represent monetary costs actually incurred by him (see Robins v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 September 1997, Reports 1997-V, p. 1812, § 44, and Narinen v. Finland, no. 45027/98, § 50, 1 June 2004).
• EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 61302/00

  As regards the applicant's claims for pecuniary loss, the Court's case-law establishes that there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicant and the violation of the Convention and that this may, in the appropriate case, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings (see, among other authorities, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain (Article 50), judgment of 13 June 1994, Series A no. 285-C, pp.

 
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 61302/00

  The Court reiterates that while Article 6 § 1 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, § 46, and Garcia Ruiz v. Spain, no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 61302/00

  The Court nevertheless has to ascertain whether the proceedings, including the way in which the evidence was taken, were fair as required by Article 6 § 1. Fairness must be assessed with regard to the proceedings as a whole (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France, no. 25444/94, §§ 45 and 46, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 37683/97

  IAN EDGAR (LIVERPOOL) LIMITED contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 61302/00

  Referring to its previous case law, the Court notes that, in so far as it concerns a loss of future income, the applicant's complaint falls outside the scope of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which concerns only existing possessions or legitimate expectations as to ownership (see Ian Edgar (Liverpool) Ltd. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 37683/97, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 61302/00

  The Court agrees with the applicant, who relies on the case of Timurtas v. Turkey (no. 23531/94, § 66, ECHR 2000-VI), that a photocopied document should be subjected to close scrutiny before it can be accepted as a true copy of an original.
• EGMR, 28.01.2003 - 34763/02

  BURG et AUTRES contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 61302/00

  Nevertheless, although Article 6 § 1 obliges courts to give reasons for their decisions, it cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, judgment of 19 April 1994, Series A no. 288, p. 20, §§ 59 and 61; Burg v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, ECHR 2003-II).
• EGMR, 06.02.2003 - 71630/01

  A. W. und andere gegen Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 61302/00

  The applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 however extends to law practices and their goodwill, as these are entities of a certain worth that have in many respects the nature of private rights, and thus constitute assets, being possessions within the meaning of the first sentence of this provision (see Van Marle and Others v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 June 1986, Series A no. 101, p. 13, § 41, and Döring v. Germany (dec.), no. 37595/97, ECHR 1999-VIII; see also Wendenburg and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 71630/01, ECHR 2003-II).
• EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

  ALBERT ET LE COMPTE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 61302/00

  Prior intervention of administrative or professional bodies, with or without judicial prerogatives, that do not satisfy all requirements may be justified if these bodies are subject to the subsequent control of a judicial body that has full jurisdiction guaranteeing the rights under Article 6 § 1 (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, judgment of 23 June 1986, Series A no. 43, p. 23, § 51, and Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, p. 16, § 29).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE
• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10873/84

  TRE TRAKTÖRER AKTIEBOLAG v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

  VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
• EGMR, 26.06.1986 - 8543/79

  VAN MARLE AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

• BVerfG, 08.11.2022 - 2 BvR 2480/10

  Verfassungsbeschwerden betreffend das Rechtsschutzsystem des Europäischen …

  Das Gericht hat nach Art. 6 EMRK Ausführungen oder Beweisangebote zur Kenntnis zu nehmen, zu prüfen und zu würdigen, muss aber nicht jeden Parteivortrag berücksichtigen, sondern nur auf die Hauptargumente des Vortrags eingehen (vgl. EGMR, van de Hurk v. Netherlands, Urteil vom 19. April 1994, Nr. 16034/90, § 59; Goktepe v. Belgium, Urteil vom 2. Juni 2005, Nr. 50372/99, § 25; Buzesku v. Romania, Urteil vom 24. Mai 2005, Nr. 61302/00, § 67).
• EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 67021/01

  Tatar und Tatar ./. Rumänien

  Ils invoquent la jurisprudence issue des affaires Iosub Caras c. Roumanie (no 7198/04, § 65, 27 juillet 2006) et Buzescu c. Roumanie (no 61302/00, § 116, 25 mai 2005), selon laquelle les frais non justifiés peuvent néanmoins être remboursés s'ils correspondaient à une nécessité et si leur montant apparaît raisonnable.
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 54522/00

  KOTOV v. RUSSIA

  Elle aurait suivi le même raisonnement concernant la situation des avocats dans l'affaire Van der Mussele c. Belgique (23 novembre 1983, série A no 70), le statut de la Fondation pour la réconciliation germano-polonaise dans l'affaire Wos c. Pologne (no 22860/02, CEDH 2006-VII) et l'Union des avocats roumains dans l'affaire Buzescu c. Roumanie (no 61302/00, 24 mai 2005).

 
• EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 8706/18

  OSMANI v. ALBANIA

  It follows that those courts failed to properly engage with or provide a specific and explicit reply to the applicant's main plea, which was decisive for the outcome of the proceedings (compare Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 30, Series A no. 303-A; Buzescu v. Romania, no. 61302/00, § 67, 24 May 2005; and, for the evaluation of proportionality of interference with the right to property, Visti?†?. and Perepjolkins, §§ 111-14, and Khizanishvili and Kandelaki, §§ 58-59, both cited above).
• EGMR, 20.10.2022 - 31876/15

  TUCS v. LATVIA

  Accordingly, the Court considers that the domestic courts failed to properly engage with or provide a specific and explicit reply to the applicant's main arguments, and that, if they had done so, this would have been decisive for the outcome of the proceedings (compare Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 30, Series A no. 303-A, and Buzescu v. Romania, no. 61302/00, § 67, 24 May 2005).
• EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 50018/17

  SAS IVECO FRANCE c. FRANCE

  Toutefois, les juridictions internes ont répondu de manière développée aux principaux arguments de la requérante (Buzescu c. Roumanie, no 61302/00, §§ 63 et 67, 24 mai 2005), en répondant avec un soin particulier aux allégations de violation des droits et libertés garantis par la Convention (Fabris c. France [GC], no 16574/08, § 72, CEDH 2013 (extraits)).
• EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 60503/15

  TRUNK v. SLOVENIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases its general principles in respect of the complaints under Article 7 of the Convention concerning the modification of the scope of the penalty and, in this connection, the lawfulness of detention under Article 5 of the Convention (see, for example, Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750/09, §§ 78-93 and 123-126, ECHR 2013), as well as its practice concerning the fair trial guarantees relied on by the applicant under Article 6 of the Convention (see, for example, Hirvisaari v. Finland, no. 49684/99, §§ 30-33, 27 September 2001, and Buzescu v. Romania, no. 61302/00, §§ 63-67, 24 May 2005) and the right to respect for one's family and private life under Article 8 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Gülmez v. Turkey, no. 16330/02, §§ 49-52, 20 May 2008).
• EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 63679/00

  SZULC v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  It follows that, in accordance with its case-law, even if the applicant had indeed spent time working on the case, the Court cannot make an award under this head, as this time would not represent monetary costs actually incurred by him (see Buzescu v. Romania, no. 61302/00, § 114, 24 May 2005, and Lehtinen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 41585/98, § 57, 8 June 2006).
• EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 8854/04

  KRNIC v. CROATIA

  In this connection the Court recalls that, in determining issues of fairness of proceedings for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention, the Court must consider the proceedings as a whole (see, for example, Pélissier and Sassi v. France, no. 25444/94, §§ 45 and 46, ECHR 1999-II, C.G. v. the United Kingdom, no. 43373/98, § 35, 19 December 2001 and Buzescu v. Romania, no. 61302/00, § 68, 24 May 2005).
• EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 62776/00

  CROSS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  It follows that, in accordance with its case-law, even if the applicant had indeed spent time working on the case, the Court cannot make an award under this head, as this time would not represent monetary costs actually incurred by him (see Buzescu v. Romania, no. 61302/00, § 114, 24 May 2005, and Lehtinen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 41585/98, § 57, 8 June 2006).
• EGMR, 20.11.2006 - 4295/03

  CHROUST v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC