Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NIKOLYAN v. ARMENIA

  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  NIKOLYAN v. ARMENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (2)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.03.2017 - 53251/13

  VIRTANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 74438/14

  Assuming, nevertheless, that the applicant's condition required some sort measure of protection in his respect, the Court notes that, as already indicated above, the domestic court had no other choice than to apply and maintain full incapacity - the most stringent measure which meant total loss of autonomy in nearly all areas of life (see, by contrast, A.-M.V. v. Finland, no. 53251/13, §§ 89-90, 23 March 2017).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 25735/94

  Fall E. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 74438/14

  The Court further reiterates that the admissibility of evidence is primarily a matter for regulation by national law and that, as a general rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them (see Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 66, ECHR 2000-VIII).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 38048/18

  N.A. v. ROMANIA

  The Court notes with satisfaction that these recent findings are also consistent with the Court's case-law in the matter (see, among many other authorities, Shtukaturov, cited above, § 95, and Nikolyan v. Armenia, no. 74438/14, §§ 122-23, 3 October 2019, with further references).
• EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 56578/11

  AYDiNDAG KESKIN c. TURQUIE

  Rn. 78 Le dernier examen médical susmentionné, effectué par des experts qualifiés en date du 23 décembre 2009, soit trois mois et une semaine avant l'adoption du jugement de première instance et moins d'un an avant l'arrêt de cassation, doit donc être considéré comme « récent'(comparer avec H.F., précité, §§ 41 et 42, Lashin, précité, §§ 83 à 86, Nikolyan c. Arménie, no 74438/14, § 124, 3 octobre 2019) et probant au sens de la jurisprudence de la Cour et du Principe 12 (paragraphe 47 ci-dessus).
• EGMR, 12.11.2024 - 25373/16

  E.T. c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Rn. 45 This being so, the Court further notes that domestic legislation did not provide for any possibility of automatic periodic review of whether the grounds for placing a person under guardianship remained valid, despite the requirement of Article 12 § 4 of the CRPD that measures restricting legal capacity be subject to regular review by a competent authority (see paragraph 22 above; see also Nikolyan v. Armenia, no. 74438/14, § 101, 3 October 2019).
• EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 1122/12

  P.T. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  In such circumstances, the Court concludes that the remedy referred to by the Government was not effective in practice (see, mutatis mutandis, Ciubuc and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 32816/07, § 26, 10 January 2012, and Nikolyan v. Armenia, no. 74438/14, § 126, 3 October 2019).