Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  THE ESTATE OF NITSCHKE v. SWEDEN

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (length) Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 06.06.2006 - 6301/05
• EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 6301/05

Wird zitiert von ... (20)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.07.2002 - 34619/97

  JANOSEVIC c. SUEDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 6301/05

  The Court reiterates that it has found in several judgments concerning Sweden that the imposition of tax surcharges involves the determination of a "criminal charge" within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention, although they cannot be said to belong to criminal law under the Swedish legal system (see, in particular, Janosevic v. Sweden, no. 34619/97, §§ 64-71, ECHR 2002-VII, and Västberga Taxi Aktiebolag and Vulic v. Sweden, no. 36985/97, §§ 75-82, 23 July 2002).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 6301/05

  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).
• EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 25149/03

  Rechtssache V. H. gegen die NIEDERLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 6301/05

  Having regard to what have been stated above and the facts of the present case, the Court finds that the unilateral declaration does not offer satisfactory redress to the applicant and that, consequently, the Government have failed to submit a statement offering a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (see, by contrast, Akman v. Turkey (striking out), no. 37453/97, §§ 23-24, ECHR 2001-VI and Van Houten v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 25149/03, §§ 34-37, ECHR 2005-IX).

• EGMR, 23.07.2002 - 36985/97

  VASTBERGA TAXI AKTIEBOLAG AND VULIC v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 6301/05

  The Court reiterates that it has found in several judgments concerning Sweden that the imposition of tax surcharges involves the determination of a "criminal charge" within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention, although they cannot be said to belong to criminal law under the Swedish legal system (see, in particular, Janosevic v. Sweden, no. 34619/97, §§ 64-71, ECHR 2002-VII, and Västberga Taxi Aktiebolag and Vulic v. Sweden, no. 36985/97, §§ 75-82, 23 July 2002).
• EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 37453/97

  AKMAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 6301/05

  Having regard to what have been stated above and the facts of the present case, the Court finds that the unilateral declaration does not offer satisfactory redress to the applicant and that, consequently, the Government have failed to submit a statement offering a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (see, by contrast, Akman v. Turkey (striking out), no. 37453/97, §§ 23-24, ECHR 2001-VI and Van Houten v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 25149/03, §§ 34-37, ECHR 2005-IX).
• EGMR, 01.07.2003 - 37801/97

  SUOMINEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 6301/05

  The Court wishes to emphasise that the function of a reasoned judgment is to afford the parties the possibility of an effective appeal and to show to the parties that they have been heard (see, Suominen v. Finland, no. 37801/97, § 37, 1 July 2003).
• EGMR, 13.02.2007 - 31535/03

  VENERA-NORD-VEST BORTA A.G. v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 6301/05

  However, as it has stated in earlier cases (see in particular Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, § 74, ECHR 2003, and Venera-Nord-Vest Borta A.G. v. Moldova, no. 31535/03, § 28, 13 February 2007), a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, declarations made in the context of strictly confidential friendly settlement proceedings (Article 38 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court) and, on the other hand, unilateral declarations made by a respondent Government in public and adversarial proceedings before the Court.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 01.10.2019 - 37858/14

  CARREFOUR FRANCE c. FRANCE

  La Cour a réaffirmé ce principe dans des affaires postérieures relatives à des décès et successions (voir, par exemple, Succession de Nitschke c. Suède, no 6301/05, § 52, 27 septembre 2007, Silickienė c. Lituanie, no 20496/02, § 51, 10 avril 2012, et Lagardère c. France, no 18851/07, § 77, 12 avril 2012).
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 22812/05

  TUNYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA

  The Court will therefore proceed on the basis of the Government's unilateral declaration and the parties" observations submitted outside the framework of friendly-settlement negotiations, and will disregard the parties" statements made in the context of exploring the possibilities for a friendly settlement of the case and the reasons why the parties were unable to agree on the terms of a friendly settlement (see Estate of Nitschke v. Sweden, no. 6301/05, § 36, 27 September 2007).
• EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 32238/08

  JEZNIK v. SLOVENIA

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Bedi v. Slovenia, no. 24901/02, §§ 18-20, 13 April 2006; Schliederer v. Germany, no. 2651/07, §§ 26-31, 21 October 2010; Nitschke v. Sweden, no. 6301/05, §§ 61-66, 27 September 2007; and FPK GROSS, OOO v. Ukraine, no. 18608/05, §§ 20-23, 16 February 2012).

• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 25825/05

  DANIELYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA

  The Court will therefore proceed on the basis of the Government's unilateral declaration and the parties" observations submitted outside the framework of friendly-settlement negotiations, and will disregard the parties" statements made in the context of exploring the possibilities for a friendly settlement of the case and the reasons why the parties were unable to agree on the terms of a friendly settlement (see Estate of Nitschke v. Sweden, no. 6301/05, § 36, 27 September 2007).
• EGMR, 05.05.2009 - 2233/03

  DOBROVOLSKIS v. LATVIA

  In accordance with Article 38 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the Court will proceed on the basis of the Government's unilateral declaration and the applicant's statement in respect thereof submitted outside the framework of friendly-settlement negotiations, and will disregard the parties" statements made in the context of exploring the possibilities for a friendly settlement of the case and the reasons why the parties were unable to agree on the terms of a friendly settlement (see Estate of Nitschke v. Sweden, no. 6301/05, § 36, 27 September 2007).
• EGMR, 09.09.2008 - 12037/03

  OZOLINS v. LATVIA

  In accordance with Article 38 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the Court will proceed on the basis of the Government's unilateral declaration and the applicant's statement in respect thereof submitted outside the framework of friendly-settlement negotiations, and will disregard the parties" statements made in the context of exploring the possibilities for a friendly settlement of the case and the reasons why the parties were unable to agree on the terms of a friendly settlement (see Estate of Nitschke v. Sweden, no. 6301/05, § 36, 27 September 2007).
• EGMR, 02.09.2008 - 6904/02

  BORISOVS v. LATVIA

  In accordance with Article 38 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the Court will proceed on the basis of the Government's unilateral declaration and the applicant's statement in respect thereof submitted outside the framework of friendly-settlement negotiations, and will disregard the parties" statements made in the context of exploring the possibilities for a friendly settlement of the case and the reasons why the parties were unable to agree on the terms of a friendly settlement (see Estate of Nitschke v. Sweden, no. 6301/05, § 36, 27 September 2007).
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 43242/05

  BAGHDASARYAN AND ZARIKYANTS v. ARMENIA

  The Court will therefore proceed on the basis of the Government's unilateral declaration and the parties" observations submitted outside the framework of friendly-settlement negotiations, and will disregard the parties" statements made in the context of exploring the possibilities for a friendly settlement of the case and the reasons why the parties were unable to agree on the terms of a friendly settlement (see Estate of Nitschke v. Sweden, no. 6301/05, § 36, 27 September 2007).
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 10446/05

  YEDIGARYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court will therefore proceed on the basis of the Government's unilateral declaration and the parties" observations submitted outside the framework of friendly-settlement negotiations, and will disregard the parties" statements made in the context of exploring the possibilities for a friendly settlement of the case and the reasons why the parties were unable to agree on the terms of a friendly settlement (see Estate of Nitschke v. Sweden, no. 6301/05, § 36, 27 September 2007).
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23566/05

  GHASABYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA

  The Court will therefore proceed on the basis of the Government's unilateral declaration and the parties" observations submitted outside the framework of friendly-settlement negotiations, and will disregard the parties" statements made in the context of exploring the possibilities for a friendly settlement of the case and the reasons why the parties were unable to agree on the terms of a friendly settlement (see Estate of Nitschke v. Sweden, no. 6301/05, § 36, 27 September 2007).
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 19940/05

  GHARIBYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 3309/06

  YERANOSYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 46014/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 22.02.2011 - 32734/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 29254/05

  PETROVS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 4044/02

  SUTOVS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 16999/02

  KAPITONOVS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 220/06

  VAHANYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 3310/06

  POGHOSYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 12569/03

  PANASENKOVS v. LATVIA