Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 61811/00 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,38705) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MILATOVÁ AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MILATOVÁ ET AUTRES c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Violation de l'art. 6-1 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Frais et dépens (procédure nationale) - demande rejetée Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 61811/00
- EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 61811/00
Wird zitiert von ... (25) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23536/94
Strafrechtliche Verfolgung auf Grund der Veröffentlichung eines Buches mit …
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 61811/00
Quant aux frais des requérants découlant de la procédure fondée sur la Convention, la Cour rappelle qu'elle ne s'estime pas liée par les barèmes et pratiques internes, même si elle peut s'en inspirer (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, les arrêts Tolstoy Miloslavsky c. Royaume-Uni, 13 juillet 1995, série A no 316-B, p. 83, § 77, et Baskaya et OkçuoÄ?lu c. Turquie [GC], nos 23536/94 et 24408/94, § 98, CEDH 1999-IV). - EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 28871/95
CONSTANTINESCU c. ROUMANIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 61811/00
Dès lors, l'absence d'audience publique durant cette procédure était selon la Cour suffisamment compensée par la tenue de telles audiences au stade décisif du procès, à savoir lors de l'examen au fond des demandes de restitution formées par les requérants (Constantinescu c. Roumanie, no 28871/95, § 53, CEDH 2000-VIII). - EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91
TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 61811/00
Quant aux frais des requérants découlant de la procédure fondée sur la Convention, la Cour rappelle qu'elle ne s'estime pas liée par les barèmes et pratiques internes, même si elle peut s'en inspirer (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, les arrêts Tolstoy Miloslavsky c. Royaume-Uni, 13 juillet 1995, série A no 316-B, p. 83, § 77, et Baskaya et OkçuoÄ?lu c. Turquie [GC], nos 23536/94 et 24408/94, § 98, CEDH 1999-IV). - EGMR, 26.03.1982 - 8269/78
Adolf ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 61811/00
Il n'y a pas lieu pour la Cour de déterminer si le défaut de communication de ces pièces a causé un préjudice aux requérants, puisque l'existence d'une violation se conçoit même en l'absence de préjudice (Adolf c. Autriche, arrêt du 26 mars 1982, série A no 49, p. 17, § 37).
- EGMR, 26.03.2024 - 31832/20
REBAC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
The Court has often found violations of Article 6 § 1 in cases raising issues similar to that of the present case (see, among many other authorities, Milatová and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 61811/00, §§ 59-66, ECHR 2005-V; Maravic Marke?., cited above, §§ 46-57; and Janácek, cited above, §§ 46-56). - EGMR, 09.02.2012 - 42856/06
KINSKÝ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Regarding the costs and expenses before the Court, the Court does not consider that the amount corresponding to the expert evaluation of the value of the property claimed in the domestic proceedings was necessarily incurred since the Court did not communicate any issue under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the parties and it is its established case-law that finding a violation of Article 6 does not normally establish any causal link to the loss of property in such proceedings (see, for example, Milatová and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 61811/00, § 70, ECHR 2005-V). - EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 58590/11
ZAHIROVIC v. CROATIA
However, whatever method is chosen, it should ensure that the other party will be aware that observations have been filed and will have a real opportunity to comment on them (see Brandstetter v. Austria, 28 August 1991, §§ 66-67, Series A no. 211; Milatová and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 61811/00, § 65, ECHR 2005-V; and, a fortiori, Krcmár and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 35376/97, §§ 41-45, 3 March 2000; and OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia, no. 14902/04, § 538, 20 September 2011).
- EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 58222/09
JURICIC v. CROATIA
Given that those opinions and information obtained in the Constitutional Court proceedings were notified to the applicant only after the proceedings before that court had ended, the foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the applicant's right to an adversarial hearing was not respected in the proceedings in question (see, mutatis mutandis, Milatová and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 61811/00, §§ 60-61 and 63-66, ECHR 2005-V). - EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 42937/08
JANYR c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
La Cour rappelle que la notion de procès équitable comprend le droit à un procès contradictoire qui implique le droit pour les parties de faire connaître les éléments qui sont nécessaires au succès de leurs prétentions, mais aussi de prendre connaissance de toute pièce ou observation présentée au juge en vue d'influencer sa décision, et de la discuter (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Nideröst-Huber c. Suisse, arrêt du 18 février 1997, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1997-I, § 24 ; Milatová et autres c. République tchèque, no 61811/00, § 59, CEDH 2005-V). - EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 65107/16
GRACIA GONZALEZ v. SPAIN
The extent to which those submissions influenced the court's assessment is not decisive from the point of view of the applicant's right to a fair hearing (see Kuopila v. Finland, no. 27752/95, § 35, 27 April 2000; see also Milatová and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 61811/00, § 65, ECHR 2005-V, and Nideröst-Huber, § 27, cited above). - EGMR, 16.05.2019 - 9825/13
TASEV v. NORTH MACEDONIA
In the Court's opinion, this evidence did not comprise observations constituting a reasoned opinion on the merits of the applicant's claim (see, conversely, Milatová and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 61811/00, § 65, ECHR 2005-V). - EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 51896/12
COLLOREDO MANSFELDOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
The Court thus concluded, referring to cases against the Czech Republic raising similar issues, for example Krcmár (cited above, § 42) and Milatová and Others v. the Czech Republic (no. 61811/00, § 65, ECHR 2005-V) that respect for the right to a fair hearing, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, required that the applicant should have been put on notice of the documentary evidence relied on by the courts and be given the opportunity to comment on it (see Colloredo Mannsfeld, cited above, § 33). - EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 65302/11
CICMANEC v. SLOVAKIA
Accordingly, the Government argued that the respective courts" observations in reply to the applicant's complaint in the present case had not constituted reasoned opinions on the merits of his complaint, unlike in the cases of Milatová and Others v. the Czech Republic (no. 61811/00, § 65, ECHR 2005-V) and Juricic v. Croatia (no. 58222/09, § 74, 26 July 2011). - EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 36124/13
KOTLYAR v. UKRAINE
It notes in this connection that it is not for the Court to speculate as to what the outcome of the proceedings would have been if they had been in conformity with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Milatová and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 61811/00, § 70, ECHR 2005-V). - EGMR, 16.01.2020 - 39071/08
STRYZH v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12
LONIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 23083/05
HUDAKOVA AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 01.06.2023 - 25775/15
KONECNÝ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 18.04.2019 - 30375/16
KLIBA v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 17273/03
KYSILKOVÁ AND KYSILKA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 39278/04
PALSOVIC c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
- EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 20862/06
BRATRI ZATKOVE, A.S., c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 23.10.2006 - 9457/03
BACA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR - 66847/16 (anhängig)
TOPRAK KARAVAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 11161/08
MONT BLANC TRADING LTD AND ANTARES TITANIUM TRADING LTD v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 17696/07
CAVAJDA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 02.02.2023 - 9634/17
JANÁCEK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 49560/20
BAOTIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
- EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 9965/08
MATOUSEK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 61811/00 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,60313) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MILATOVÁ AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 61811/00
- EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 61811/00
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 33071/96
MALHOUS c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 61811/00
In accordance with the Court's practice, a conditional claim which lapses as a result of the non-fulfilment of a statutory condition cannot be considered a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, e.g., Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII). - EGMR, 04.03.2003 - 41784/98
A.B. v. SLOVAKIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 61811/00
It is not its function 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 freedom protected by the Convention (see A.B. v. Slovakia, no. 41784/98, § 66, 4 March 2003). - EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80
VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 61811/00
b) To the extent that the applicants complain of the dismissal of their restitution claim, the Court recalls that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 applies only to existing possessions and does not guarantee a right to acquire property (see, e.g., Van der Mussele v. Belgium, judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, § 48).