Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WEISSMAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA [Extracts]

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses - claim dismissed ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WEISSMAN ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 6-1 Violation de P1-1 Dommage matériel - réparation pécuniaire Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Frais et dépens - demande rejetée ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 28.09.2004 - 63945/00
• EGMR, 24.05.2006 - 63945/00
• EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 63945/00

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 28249/95

  KREUZ c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2006 - 63945/00

  Referring to Kreuz v. Poland (no. 1) (no. 28249/95, § 66, ECHR 2001-VI), they considered that the Romanian authorities had not struck a fair balance between, on the one hand, the State's right to recover procedural costs and, on the other, their interest in having their claims examined by the courts.
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2006 - 63945/00

  Relying on the Court's case-law (see Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, §§ 61-67, Series A no. 316-B) and that of the Commission (Philis v. Greece, no. 18989/91, decision of 12 October 1994, unreported), the Government claimed that the fact of establishing procedural costs which were proportional to the amounts claimed in civil proceedings could not, in itself, represent an impediment to the right of access to a court.
• EGMR, 10.01.2006 - 48140/99

  TELTRONIC-CATV v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2006 - 63945/00

  Having regard to the circumstances of the case, and particularly to the fact that this restriction was imposed at an initial stage of the proceedings, the Court considers that it was disproportionate and thus impaired the very essence of the right of access to a court (see, mutatis mutandis, Teltronic­CATV v. Poland, no. 48140/99, 10 January 2006).
• EKMR, 12.10.1994 - 18989/91

  PHILIS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2006 - 63945/00

  Relying on the Court's case-law (see Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, §§ 61-67, Series A no. 316-B) and that of the Commission (Philis v. Greece, no. 18989/91, decision of 12 October 1994, unreported), the Government claimed that the fact of establishing procedural costs which were proportional to the amounts claimed in civil proceedings could not, in itself, represent an impediment to the right of access to a court.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 38151/05

  RUSEN c. ROUMANIE

  Il rappelle que la subordination de l'accès au juge à des frais de procédure ne représente pas en soi une atteinte au droit à un procès équitable (Weissman et autres c. Roumanie, no 63945/00, CEDH 2006-... (extraits), Jedamski et Jedamska c. Pologne, no 73547/01, 26 juillet 2005) et qu'une bonne administration de la justice peut justifier des frais de justice dont le montant doit s'apprécier à la lumière des circonstances particulières de chaque affaire (Tolstoy Miloslavsky c. Royaume-Uni, 13 juillet 1995, série A no 316-B).

  La Cour se réfère à sa jurisprudence en matière d'accès à un tribunal et notamment aux affaires Airey c. Irlande (9 octobre 1979, série A no 32), Tolstoy Miloslavsky précité, Kreuz c. Pologne (no 28249/95, CEDH 2001-VI) et Weissman et autres c. Roumanie (no 63945/00, CEDH 2006-... (extraits)).

  A cet égard la Cour observe qu'à la différence des autres affaires contre la Roumanie concernant les droits de timbre (voir, parmi d'autres, Weissman c. Roumanie (déc.), no 63945/00, CEDH 28 septembre 2004, Iorga c. Roumanie, no 4227/02, § 47, 25 janvier 2007, Nemeti c. Roumanie, no 37278/03, §§ 30 et 31, 1er avril 2008), dans cette affaire la requérante a pu s'adresser à un tribunal qui a statué sur sa demande d'exemption.

• EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 73798/13

  VALADA MATOS DAS NEVES c. PORTUGAL

  Il n'en reste pas moins qu'une limitation de l'accès à un tribunal ne se concilie avec l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention que si elle tend à un but légitime et s'il existe un rapport raisonnable de proportionnalité entre les moyens employés et le but visé (Weissman et autres c. Roumanie, no 63945/00, § 36, CEDH 2006-VII (extraits)).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 28.04.2016 - C-439/14

  Star Storage - Vergabe öffentlicher Aufträge - Richtlinien 89/665/EWG und …

  Vgl. u. a. Urteile des EGMR Tolstoy Miloslavski/Vereinigtes Königreich vom 13. Juli 1995, CE:ECHR:1992:0220DEC00181399, §§ 59 bis 67, vom 4. Mai 2006, Weissman u. a./Rumänien, CE:ECHR:2006:0524JUD006394500, §§ 32 bis 44, und vom 12. Juli 2007, Stankov/Bulgarien, CE:ECHR:2007:0712JUD006849001, § 53.

• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 22302/10

  ARLEWIN v. SWEDEN

  In the specific circumstances of a particular case, the practical and effective nature of this right may be impaired, for instance by the prohibitive cost of the proceedings in view of the individual's financial capacity or by the excessive amount of security for costs in the context of an application to join criminal proceedings as a civil party (see Aït-Mouhoub v. France, 28 October 1998, §§ 57-58, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII, and also García Manibardo v. Spain, no. 38695/97, §§ 38-45, ECHR 2000-II) or excessive court fees (see Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, §§ 60-67, ECHR 2001-VI; Podbielski and PPU Polpure v. Poland, no. 39199/98, §§ 65-66, 26 July 2005; and Weissman and Others v. Romania, no. 63945/00, § 42, ECHR 2006-VII (extracts); see also, conversely, Reuther v. Germany (dec.), no. 74789/01, ECHR 2003-X).
• EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 38736/04

  FC MRETEBI v. GEORGIA

  The Court recalls that the requirement to pay civil court fees in order to initiate proceedings cannot be regarded as a restriction on the right of access to a court which is incompatible per se with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (Weissman and Others v. Romania, no. 63945/00, §§ 34 and 35, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 63610/00

  FORUM MARITIME S.A. c. ROUMANIE

  La même conclusion s'impose à l'égard de l'irrecevabilité de l'action civile contre la BCIT pour non-paiement du droit de timbre (voir, a contrario, Weissman c. Roumanie, no 63945/00, §§ 42-43, 4 mai 2006).
• EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 40547/10

  TECHNIKI OLYMPIAKI A.E. c. GRÈCE

  Î αρόλα αυτά &omikron; περι&omikron;ρισµός της πρόσβασης στην δικαι&omikron;σÏ�νη είναι σÏ�µφων&omikron;ς µε τ&omikron; άρθρ&omikron; 6§ 1 της ΣÏ�µβασης µόν&omikron;ν αν απ&omikron;βλέπει σε έναν νόµιµ&omikron; σκ&omikron;πό και αν υπάρχει εÏ�λ&omikron;γη σχέση αναλ&omikron;γίας µεταξÏ� των χρησιµ&omikron;π&omikron;ι&omikron;Ï�µενων µÎ­σων και τ&omikron;υ επιδιωκόµεν&omikron;υ σκ&omikron;π&omikron;Ï� (Weissman και λ&omikron;ιπ&omikron;ί κατά Ρ&omikron;υµανίας, αρ. 63945/00, § 36, CEDH 2006-VII (απ&omikron;σπάσµατα)).
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 22251/07

  [ENG]

  That is a matter which the Court has had occasion to consider under Article 6 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, §§ 61-67, Series A no. 316-B; Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, §§ 58-67, ECHR 2001-VI; Weissman and Others v. Romania, no. 63945/00, § 33-43, ECHR 2006-VII (extracts), as regards access to first-instance and appeal proceedings; Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, §§ 58-65, ECHR 2006-XIV as regards access to enforcement proceedings; and also, mutatis mutandis, Anakomba Yula v. Belgium, no. 45413/07, § 34-39, 10 March 2009, as regards denial of legal aid on discriminatory grounds).
• EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 16261/08

  HOARE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In this respect, the Court notes that his situation should be distinguished from that of indigent litigants who are required to pay substantial sums by way of security for costs or court fees in the initial stages of the proceedings, thereby raising issues of access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 61, Series A no. 316-B; and more recently, Weissman and Others v. Romania, no. 63945/00, § 37, ECHR 2006-VII (extracts); Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, §§ 52-57, ECHR 2001-VI).
• EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 40958/06

  [FRE]

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Romania, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to access to court due to imposition of disproportionate stamp taxes before the domestic courts (see, for example, Weissman and Others v. Romania, no. 63945/00, 24 May 2006; and Beian v. Romania (no.2), no. 4113/03, 7 February 2008).
• EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 26985/03

  BURGHELEA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 41688/07

  SC ALEX PROD COM SRL v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 37768/08

  BEZNEA v. ROMANIA