Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZAGORODNIKOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (public hearing) No Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 66941/01
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 66941/01
• EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 66941/01

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.07.2002 - 56547/00

  P., C. ET S. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 66941/01

  Furthermore, from the Convention standpoint, a hearing may be held to have been "unfair" and in breach of Article 6 even in the absence of proof of actual prejudice (see P., C. and S. v. the United Kingdom, no. 56547/00, § 96, ECHR 2002-VI, with further references).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 54645/00

  OSINGER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 66941/01

  By rendering the administration of justice visible, publicity contributes to the achievement of the aim of Article 6 § 1, a fair hearing, the guarantee of which is one of the foundations of a democratic society (see Osinger v. Austria, no. 54645/00, § 44, 24 March 2005, with further references).
• EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 46082/99

  KLYAKHIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 66941/01

  The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be reimbursed under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Klyakhin v. Russia, no. 46082/99, § 131, 30 November 2004).
• EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 39197/98

  FOLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 66941/01

  It is true that the State is not required to provide a perfectly functioning postal system (see, mutatis mutandis, Foley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39197/98, 11 September 2001); however, the domestic law required commercial courts to verify at the beginning of the proceedings whether the notice to appear had been duly dispatched to the absentee parties (see paragraph 16 above).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• BVerfG, 14.03.2012 - 2 BvR 2405/11

  Zum Grundsatz der Verfahrensöffentlichkeit - hier: Verbot des Tragens von …

  Sie ist außerdem ein Mittel, um das Vertrauen in die Gerichtsbarkeit zu sichern (vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 8. Dezember 1983 - 8273/78 -, Axen/Deutschland, Tz. 25, EGMR-E 2, 321 ; EGMR, Urteil vom 22. Februar 1984 - 8209/78 -, Sutter/Schweiz, Tz. 26, EGMR-E 2, 345 ; EGMR, Urteil vom 14. November 2000 - 35115/97 -, Riepan/Österreich, Tz. 27; EGMR, Urteil vom 7. Juni 2007 - 66941/01 -, Zagorodnikov/Russland, Tz. 20; EGMR, Urteil vom 4. Dezember 2007 - 64056/00 -, Volkov/Russland, Tz. 25; EGMR, Urteil vom 4. Dezember 2008 - 28617/03 -, Belashev/Russland, Tz. 79).
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 2430/06

  GANKIN v. RUSSIA

  Nor are the domestic authorities required to provide a perfectly functioning postal system (see Zagorodnikov v. Russia, no. 66941/01, § 31, 7 June 2007).
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 14146/02

  [ENG]

  Having regard to the foregoing and taking into account the Court's finding that it is understandable that in the sphere involving participation of convicted persons in civil cases the national authorities should have regard to the demands of efficiency and economy (see paragraph 202 above), the Court finds that there were circumstances which justified dispensing with the applicant's right to attend the hearing before the Kaliningrad Regional Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 58, Series A no. 263, and Zagorodnikov v. Russia, no. 66941/01, §§ 33, 34, 7 June 2007).

• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 30616/05

  AKASHEV v. RUSSIA

  It had mailed a notice to the applicant's last known address, and in any event the State was not responsible for a possibly faulty postal service (see Zagorodnikov v. Russia, no. 66941/01, § 31, 7 June 2007).
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 70329/12

  LAZARENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Nor are the domestic authorities required to provide a perfectly functioning postal system (see Zagorodnikov v. Russia, no. 66941/01, § 31, 7 June 2007).
• EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 39229/03

  [ENG]

  This principle would be devoid of substance if a party to the case were not notified of the hearing in such a way as to have an opportunity to attend it, should he or she decide to exercise a right to appear established in domestic law (see Zagorodnikov v. Russia, no. 66941/01, § 30, 7 June 2007).
• EGMR, 02.02.2017 - 27793/08

  LOPUSHANSKYY v. UKRAINE

  Nor are the domestic authorities required to provide a perfectly functioning postal system (see Zagorodnikov v. Russia, no. 66941/01, § 31, 7 June 2007).
• EGMR, 15.03.2011 - 15093/05

  [ENG]

  The Government also noted that the State was not required to provide a perfectly functioning postal system (see Zagorodnikov v. Russia, no. 66941/01, § 31, 7 June 2007, and, mutatis mutandis, Foley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39197/98, 11 September 2001).
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 27841/07

  ORAMS v. CYPRUS

  As the Court has previously found, the principle of equality of arms would be devoid of substance if a party to the case were not notified of the hearing in such a way as to have an opportunity to attend it, should he or she decide to exercise a right to appear established in domestic law (see for example, Zagorodnikov v. Russia, no. 66941/01, § 30, 7 June 2007).
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 15034/02

  LARIN v. RUSSIA

  They referred to the cases of Foley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39197/98, 11 September 2001, and Zagorodnikov v. Russia, no. 66941/01 7 June 2001.
• EGMR, 30.09.2008 - 2911/03

  SHYTIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 08.03.2012 - 34361/06

  [ENG]