Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ESTOK v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2004 - 63994/00

  Moreover, while Article 6 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, among other authorities, Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 57984/00

  ANDRASIK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2004 - 63994/00

  57984/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00, 68563/01, 60226/00, 22 October 2002).
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 45656/99

  CATALDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2004 - 63994/00

  Only when these conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude examination of an application (see Cataldo v. Italy (dec.), no. 45656/99, 3 June 2004, with further references).

• EKMR, 03.05.1988 - 12860/87

  ANDERSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2004 - 63994/00

  The applicant's status as a victim then depends on whether the redress afforded at domestic level on the basis of the facts about which he complains before the Court (see Andersen v. Denmark, no. 12860/87, and Frederiksen and Others v. Denmark, no. 12719/87, Commission decisions of 3 May 1988, unreported; Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; and Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003) was adequate and sufficient having regard to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention.
• EKMR, 03.05.1988 - 12719/87

  FREDERIKSEN c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2004 - 63994/00

  The applicant's status as a victim then depends on whether the redress afforded at domestic level on the basis of the facts about which he complains before the Court (see Andersen v. Denmark, no. 12860/87, and Frederiksen and Others v. Denmark, no. 12719/87, Commission decisions of 3 May 1988, unreported; Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; and Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003) was adequate and sufficient having regard to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 07.09.2004 - 62216/00

  SIRANCOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2004 - 63994/00

  In the light of all the material in its possession including the promptness of the award made by the Constitutional Court and having regard to the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the national authorities, the Court considers that the sum afforded to the applicant cannot be considered unacceptably low having regard to the Court's practice in similar cases (see Cataldo, cited above, Širancová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 62216/00, 7 September 2004 and, a contrario, Scordino v. Italy (dec.), no. 36813/97, 27 March 2003).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 67299/01

  DUBJAKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  In the light of all the material in its possession, including the promptness of the findings and award made by the Constitutional Court in the present case, the Court considers that the sum accorded to the applicant cannot be considered as unreasonable (see Cataldo, cited above, Širancová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 62216/00, 7 September 2004, Eštok v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 63994/00, 28 September 2004 and, a contrario, Scordino v. Italy (dec.), no. 36813/97, 27 March 2003).
• EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 15382/04

  KALAJZIC v. CROATIA

  In the light of the material in the file and having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the sum awarded to the applicant can be considered sufficient and therefore appropriate redress for the violation suffered (see Cataldo v. Italy, cited above, Sirancová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 62216/00, 7 September 2004, Estok v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 63994/00, 28 September 2004, Dubjaková v. Slovakia (dec.), cited above).
• EGMR, 23.05.2006 - 9545/02

  RUTTKAY AND RUTTKAYOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  The Court however finds no grounds for an assumption that, in this context, the level of just satisfaction awards by the Constitutional Court is generally insufficient (see Sirancová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 62216/00, 7 September 2004, Estok v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 63994/00, 28 September 2004, Dubjaková, cited above and Bako v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 60227/00, 15 March 2005).
• EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 55864/07

  IVAN AND MARTIN MEDIC v. CROATIA

  In the light of the material in the file and having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the sum awarded to the applicants can be considered sufficient and therefore appropriate redress for the violation suffered, in particular in view of the fact that the Constitutional Court's order to the Kastel Luksic Municipal Court was complied with (see Cataldo v. Italy, cited above, Sirancová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 62216/00, 7 September 2004, Estok v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 63994/00, 28 September 2004, Dubjaková v. Slovakia (dec.), cited above).
• EGMR, 18.12.2007 - 3305/04

  VICANOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  The Court recalls in this connection that constitutional remedies available for length of proceedings complaints in Slovakia prior to 1 January 2002 were not considered effective in the Convention sense (see Estok v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 63994/00, 28 September 2004).