Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
LÓPEZ OSTRA c. ESPAGNE
Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 34 MRK
Exception préliminaire rejetée (non-épuisement) Exception préliminaire rejetée (victime) Violation de l'Art. 8 Non-violation de l'Art. 3 Dommage matériel - réparation pécuniaire Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
LÓPEZ OSTRA v. SPAIN
Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 34 MRK
Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion) Preliminary objection rejected (victim) Violation of Art. 8 No violation of Art. 3 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ... - Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 08.07.1992 - 16798/90
- EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90
Papierfundstellen
- Serie A Nr. 303-C
Wird zitiert von ... (132) Neu Zitiert selbst (8)
- EGMR, 19.12.1990 - 11444/85
DELTA c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90
Mr Mazón Costa cannot rely on Article 50 (art. 50) to claim just satisfaction on his own account as he accepted the terms of the legal aid granted to his client (see, among other authorities, the Delta v. France judgment of 19 December 1990, Series A no. 191-A, p. 18, para. 47). - EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74
MARCKX v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90
At all events, if the applicant could now return to her former home following the decision to close the plant, this would be a factor to be taken into account in assessing the damage she sustained but would not mean that she ceased to be a victim (see, among many other authorities, the Marckx v. Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, pp. 13-14, para. 27, and the Inze v. Austria judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, p. 16, para. 32). - EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76
GUZZARDI v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90
The applicant therefore provided the national courts with the opportunity which is in principle intended to be afforded to Contracting States by Article 26 (art. 26) of the Convention, namely the opportunity of putting right the violations alleged against them (see, inter alia, the De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium judgment of 18 June 1971, Series A no. 12, p. 29, para. 50, and the Guzzardi v. Italy judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, p. 27, para. 72).
- EGMR, 17.10.1986 - 9532/81
REES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90
Furthermore, even in relation to the positive obligations flowing from the first paragraph of Article 8 (art. 8-1), in striking the required balance the aims mentioned in the second paragraph (art. 8-2) may be of a certain relevance (see, in particular, the Rees v. the United Kingdom judgment of 17 October 1986, Series A no. 106, p. 15, para. 37, and the Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, p. 18, para. 41). - EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 15450/89
CASADO COCA v. SPAIN
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90
The Court has consistently held that it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see, inter alia, the Casado Coca v. Spain judgment of 24 February 1994, Series A no. 285-A, p. 18, para. 43). - EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63
Neumeister ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90
Where a situation under consideration is a persisting one, the Court may take into account facts occurring after the application has been lodged and even after the decision on admissibility has been adopted (see, as the earliest authority, the Neumeister v. Austria judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, p. 21, para. 28, and p. 38, para. 7). - EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81
POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90
Furthermore, even in relation to the positive obligations flowing from the first paragraph of Article 8 (art. 8-1), in striking the required balance the aims mentioned in the second paragraph (art. 8-2) may be of a certain relevance (see, in particular, the Rees v. the United Kingdom judgment of 17 October 1986, Series A no. 106, p. 15, para. 37, and the Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, p. 18, para. 41). - EGMR, 28.10.1987 - 8695/79
Inze ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90
At all events, if the applicant could now return to her former home following the decision to close the plant, this would be a factor to be taken into account in assessing the damage she sustained but would not mean that she ceased to be a victim (see, among many other authorities, the Marckx v. Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, pp. 13-14, para. 27, and the Inze v. Austria judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, p. 16, para. 32).
- EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 9300/07
Herrmann ./. Deutschland
Lopez Ostra./. Spanien, 9. Dezember 1994, Rdnr. 51, Serie A Band 303-C, und Guerra und andere./. Italien, 19. Februar 1998, Rdnr. 60, Urteils- und Entscheidungssammlung 1998-I. - EGMR, 08.07.2003 - 36022/97
HATTON ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
De même, dans l'affaire López Ostra c. Espagne (arrêt du 9 décembre 1994, série A no 303-C, pp. 54-55, § 51), la Cour a déclaré que l'article 8 pouvait inclure un droit à être protégé contre des atteintes graves à l'environnement car celles-ci pouvaient « affecter le bien-être d'une personne et la priver de la jouissance de son domicile de manière à nuire à sa vie privée et familiale, sans pour autant mettre en grave danger la santé de l'intéressée ".La Cour a confirmé avec netteté que la Convention garantissait, sous l'article 8, 1e droit à un environnement sain: elle a conclu, les deux fois à l'unanimité, à la violation de l'article 8, dans les affaires López Ostra c. Espagne (arrêt du 9 décembre 1994, série A no 303-C) et Guerra et autres c. Italie (arrêt du 19 février 1998, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1998-I).
- EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 15339/02
BUDAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
In assessing whether the respondent State had complied with the positive obligation, the Court must consider the particular circumstances of the case, regard being had, among other elements, to the domestic legality of the authorities' acts or omissions (see López Ostra v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C, pp. 46-47, §§ 16-22, and Guerra and Others v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 219, §§ 25-27), the domestic decision-making process, including the appropriate investigations and studies, and the complexity of the issue, especially where conflicting Convention interests are involved (see Hatton and others, cited above, § 128, and Fadeyeva, cited above, §§ 96-98).
- EGMR, 03.07.2007 - 32015/02
H. G. gegen Deutschland
Dabei können auch hinsichtlich der positiven Verpflichtungen, die aus Artikel 8 Abs. 1 fließen, bei der Herstellung des erforderlichen Ausgleichs die in Abs. 2 erwähnten Ziele von einer gewissen Bedeutung sein (…siehe Hatton , a.a.O., Rdnr. 98;… Moreno Gómez , a.a.O., Rdnr. 55; López Ostra ./. Spanien , Urteil vom 9. Dezember 1994, Serie A Band 303-C, Rdnr. 51 und Giacomelli , a.a.O., Rdnr. 76). - EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00
FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE
The Court further points out that the adverse effects of environmental pollution must attain a certain minimum level if they are to fall within the scope of Article 8 (see López Ostra v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C, p. 54, § 51; see also, mutatis mutandis, Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 118, ECHR 2003-VIII).In the leading case of López Ostra v. Spain (judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C), referred to in the judgment, the Court found that the State had not succeeded in striking a fair balance between the interest of the town's economic well-being and the applicant's effective enjoyment of her right to respect for her home and her private and family life.
- EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 6780/18
ROTH v. GERMANY
The Court also reiterates that the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies is intended to provide national authorities with the opportunity of remedying violations alleged by an applicant (see, inter alia, López Ostra v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 38, Series A no. 303-C, and Tomé Mota v. Portugal (dec.), no. 32082/96, ECHR 1999-IX). - EGMR, 19.02.1998 - 14967/89
GUERRA ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
In the present case it need only be ascertained whether the national authorities took the necessary steps to ensure effective protection of the applicants' right to respect for their private and family life as guaranteed by Article 8 (see the Lpez Ostra v. Spain judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C, p. 55, § 55). - EGMR, 22.03.2012 - 30078/06
Konstantin Markin ./. Russland
[5] This right has been derived from Article 8 (López Ostra v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 51, Series A no. 303-C; Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, §§ 57- 60, Reports 1998-I; Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 2003, §§ 96-99, Reports 2003-VIII; and Georgel and Georgeta Stoicescu v. Romania, no. 9178/03, §§ 61-62, 26 July 2011) or from Article 2 (Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 90, ECHR 2004-XII). - EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 31612/09
PAVLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The Court further observes that in a number of cases where it found that Article 8 was applicable, the proximity of the applicants" homes to the sources of pollution was one of the factors taken into account by the Court (see, for example, Jugheli and Others, cited above (4.5 metres); Dubetska and Others, cited above (420 and 430 metres); Giacomelli v. Italy, no. 59909/00, ECHR 2006-XII (30 metres); Tatar v. Romania, no. 67021/01, 27 January 2009 (100 metres); Fadeyeva, cited above (450 metres); and López Ostra v. Spain, 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C (30 metres)).The present case continues, on its face, a long journey of environment-related adjudication under Article 8 that has been steadily developed by this Court for almost 30 years (see, for example, López Ostra v. Spain, 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C; Khatun and 180 Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 38387/97, 1 July 1998; Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; Moe and Others v. Norway (dec.), no. 30966/96, 14 December 1999; Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, ECHR 2005-IV; Bacila v. Romania, no. 19234/04, 30 March 2010; Apanasewicz v. Poland, no. 6854/07, 3 May 2011; Jugheli and Others v. Georgia, no. 38342/05, 13 July 2017; Dubetska and Others v. Ukraine, no. 30499/03, 10 February 2011; and Cordella and Others v. Italy, nos.
[11] Ole W. Pedersen, "The European Court of Human Rights and International Environmental Law", in John H. Knox and Ramin Pejan (eds), The Human Right to a Healthy Environment, cited above, 86, 88. The passage above is based on López Ostra v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 51, Series A no. 303-C.
[28] See López Ostra v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 51, Series A no. 303-C, where the Court ruled that severe environmental pollution may affect individuals" well-being and prevent them from enjoying their rights enshrined by Article 8 of the Convention.
- EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 67021/01
Tatar und Tatar ./. Rumänien
En ce sens, ils invoquent l'affaire López Ostra c. Espagne (arrêt du 9 décembre 1994, § 51, série A no 303-C). - EGMR, 22.05.2003 - 41666/98
KYRTATOS c. GRECE
- EGMR, 24.01.2019 - 54414/13
CORDELLA ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 30765/08
Di Sarno u.a. ./. Italien
- EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 60908/11
BRINCAT AND OTHERS v. MALTA
- EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 4143/02
MORENO GÓMEZ c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13
LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 10.11.2004 - 46117/99
Taskin u.a. ./. Türkei - Umgehung einer rechtskräftigen Entscheidung der Justiz …
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 12.04.2005 - C-295/03
Alessandrini u.a. / Kommission - Rechtsmittel - Bananen - Einfuhr aus …
- EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 18215/06
G. e.V. u.a. gegen Deutschland
- EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 17423/05
KOLYADENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 6586/03
BRANDUSE c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 13.07.2017 - 38342/05
JUGHELI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 25.07.2002 - 48553/99
SOVTRANSAVTO HOLDING c. UKRAINE
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 26.05.2005 - C-176/03
Kommission / Rat - Umwelt - Schutz durch das Strafrecht - Rechtsgrundlage - …
- EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 36022/97
HATTON AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 52806/09
VILNES AND OTHERS v. NORWAY
- EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 11810/03
MAURICE v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 24.02.1998 - 21439/93
BOTTA v. ITALY
- EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 22743/07
OTGON v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 75218/01
COLLECTIF NATIONAL D'INFORMATION ET D'OPPOSITION A L'USINE MELOX - COLLECTIF STOP …
- EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 21532/08
MARTINEZ MARTINEZ c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 6817/04
WALKUSKA v. POLAND
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 16.12.2010 - C-28/09
Kommission / Österreich - Vertragsverletzung eines Mitgliedstaats - Art. 226 EG - …
- EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 41138/98
MOLDOVAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (No. 2)
- EGMR, 17.01.2006 - 42756/02
LUGINBUHL c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 59909/00
GIACOMELLI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 7189/21
CARÊME v. FRANCE
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 17.02.2011 - C-120/10
Nach Ansicht des Generalanwalts Cruz Villalón können die Mitgliedstaaten …
- EGMR, 21.07.2011 - 38182/03
GRIMKOVSKAYA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 07.06.2005 - 71186/01
FUKLEV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 61603/00
STORCK v. GERMANY
- EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 1513/03
DRAON c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 38621/97
ZEHNALOVÁ ET ZEHNAL c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 30499/03
DUBETSKA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 26.02.2008 - 37664/04
FÄGERSKIÖLD v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 64301/01
VELCEA ET MAZARE c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 31965/07
HARDY AND MAILE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 24202/10
Maempel ./. Malta
- EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 75031/13
KAPA AND OTHERS v. POLAND
- EGMR, 04.09.2014 - 42488/02
DZEMYUK v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 61260/08
OLUIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 67021/01
TATAR AND TATAR v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 06.02.2018 - 23225/05
CALANCEA ET AUTRES c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 43449/02
MILEVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
- EKMR, 07.04.1997 - 34614/97
SCIENTOLOGY KIRCHE DEUTSCHLAND E. v. c. ALLEMAGNE
- EGMR, 07.08.1996 - 15175/89
Allenet de Ribemont ./. Frankreich
- EGMR, 04.09.2007 - 14379/03
B. S. gegen Deutschland
- EGMR, 12.06.2007 - 75218/01
COLLECTIF NATIONAL D'INFORMATION ET D'OPPOSITION A L'USINE MELOX - COLLECTIF STOP …
- EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 52392/99
UÇAR v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 12605/03
LEON AND AGNIESZKA KANIA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 42596/98
SARI AND ÇOLAK v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 19.01.1999 - 44911/98
T.A. AND OTHERS v. GERMANY
- EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 14064/07
CARIELLO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 25002/09
FRANKOWSKI ET AUTRES c. POLOGNE
- EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 12853/03
IVAN ATANASOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 19234/04
BACILA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 18324/04
GALEV & OTHERS v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 16.10.2003 - 55723/00
FADEYEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 27310/09
UDOVICIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 61654/08
MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ ET PINO MANZANO c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 15.03.2005 - 59909/00
GIACOMELLI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 29.06.2004 - 4143/02
MORENO GOMEZ contre l'ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 39561/98
ASHWORTH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 19.10.2023 - 35648/10
LOCASCIA AND OTHERS v. ITALY
- EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 44837/07
ÇIÇEK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 52499/11
VECBASTIKA AND OTHERS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 39386/10
DE CIANTIS c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 22.02.2005 - 47148/99
NOVOSSELETSKI c. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 46117/99
TASKIN et AUTRES contre la TURQUIE
- EGMR, 28.10.2003 - 38223/97
MINJAT c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 03.06.2003 - 38565/97
COTLET c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 6142/18
KOTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.05.2022 - 47987/15
SOLYANIK v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 17840/06
YEVGENIY DMITRIYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 13482/15
TOLIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 26.02.2019 - 19295/12
PODELEAN c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 7153/07
ORLIKOWSCY v. POLAND
- EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 38197/03
MARCHIS AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 43146/05
GOMEZ LOPEZ c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 43934/07
TARNOWSKI v. POLAND (No. 2)
- EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 71146/01
BORYSIEWICZ v. POLAND
- EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 53157/99
LEDYAYEVA, DOBROKHOTOVA, ZOLOTAREVA and ROMASHINA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.10.2006 - 29858/03
DUCHONOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 01.12.2005 - 13191/02
TRAJKOSKI AND OTHERS v.
- EGMR, 02.12.1999 - 29695/96
GRONUS v. POLAND
- EGMR, 29.06.1999 - 47547/99
EBRAHIMZADEH MOGHADAM YAZDI v. GERMANY
- EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 38695/13
KOZUL AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
- EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 64719/09
WILK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 17.06.2014 - 1733/06
KOCENIAK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 40806/07
AYDIN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 15.12.2011 - 5203/09
KONDRATYEV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 6854/07
APANASEWICZ c. POLOGNE
- EGMR, 22.04.2008 - 59857/00
BENNICH-ZALEWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 75287/01
RUANO MORCUENDE c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 11.03.2003 - 47148/99
NOVOSSELETSKI contre l'UKRAINE
- EGMR, 22.01.2002 - 31118/96
DATI contre l'ITALIE
- EGMR, 27.04.2000 - 44174/98
FERRAGUT PALLACH contre l'ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 30966/96
MOE AND OTHERS v. NORWAY
- EGMR, 02.12.1999 - 39695/96
GRONUS v. POLAND
- EGMR, 22.06.1999 - 48437/99
DJILALI contre l'ALLEMAGNE
- EGMR, 09.03.1999 - 37680/97
RIERA BLUME ET AUTRES contre l'ESPAGNE
- EKMR, 16.04.1998 - 32165/96
WOCKEL c. ALLEMAGNE
- EKMR, 15.01.1998 - 36053/97
STOCKTON AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 23.10.1997 - 30470/96
ZIPPEL v. GERMANY
- EKMR, 22.10.1997 - 32372/96
TIMMER AND 'T LAAKSE HOOGH B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EKMR, 29.11.1995 - 22836/93
N. and subsequently I.L. v. SWEDEN
- EKMR, 02.03.1995 - 24257/94
KOC v. TURKEY
- EKMR, 24.02.1995 - 19822/92
S.L.O. v. SWITZERLAND
- EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 65175/10
FIEROIU ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 25163/08
NOVESKI AND OTHERS v.
- EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 25194/08
PLACHTA ET AUTRES c. POLOGNE
- EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 26040/06
SCHIOPU AND VERZESCU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 28852/05
OGLOBLINA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 37952/09
VARTIC v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 33915/03
TARNOWSKI v. POLAND (No. 1)
- EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 62101/00
FURLEPA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 13.11.2006 - 36150/03
APARICIO BENITO c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 16.09.2004 - 53157/99
LEDYAYEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 31358/03
MUSCIO c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 02.12.2004 - 77360/01
BOTTI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 41671/98
LAM AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 36735/97
SCIAVILLA contre l'ITALIE
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 18064/91, 46/1993/441/520 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
HIRO BALANI c. ESPAGNE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Violation de l'Art. 6-1 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
HIRO BALANI v. SPAIN
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings ... - juris (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 30.03.1993 - 18064/91
- EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 18064/91, 46/1993/441/520
Papierfundstellen
- Serie A Nr. 303-B
Wird zitiert von ... (117) Neu Zitiert selbst (1)
- EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90
VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 18064/91
1 (art. 6-1) oblige les tribunaux à motiver leurs décisions, mais qu'il ne peut se comprendre comme exigeant une réponse détaillée à chaque argument (voir l'arrêt Van de Hurk c. Pays-Bas du 19 avril 1994, série A no 288, p. 20, par. 61).
- EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06
Chodorkowski: Moskauer Prozesse sind unfair
Usually this question appears in the context of Article 6 § 1 (see Hiro Balani v. Spain, 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-B), but the Court has also examined it under Article 5 § 4 (see Nikolova, cited above, § 61). - EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01
Budweiser-Streit
The Court did, however, find a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the Spanish Supreme Court's failure to examine a ground of appeal by the applicant company alleging noncompliance with the priority rule ( Hiro Balani v. Spain , judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-B, p. 30, § 28). - EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 18116/15
PETROVIC AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO
If, however, a submission would, if accepted, be decisive for the outcome of the case, it may require a specific and express reply by the court in its judgment (see Hiro Balani v. Spain, 9 December 1994, §§ 27-28, Series A no. 303-B, and Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, §§ 29-30, Series A no. 303-A).If, however, a submission would, if accepted, be decisive for the outcome of the case, as has been the applicants" situation in the present case, it may require a specific and express reply by the court in its judgment (see Hiro Balani v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 27, Series A no. 303-B, and Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 29, Series A no. 303-A).
- EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 35485/05
HUSEYN AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
The extent to which this duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision and must be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case (see Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 29, Series A no. 303-A, and Hiro Balani v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 27, Series A no. 303-B). - EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 37235/97
SOFRI et AUTRES contre l'ITALIE
Courts must reply to parties" essential arguments, but the extent to which that duty applies may vary in accordance with the nature of the decision and must therefore be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case (Hiro Balani v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-B, pp. 29-30, § 27; and Burg v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, 28 January 2003). - EuGH, 26.09.2019 - C-358/19
PITEE Fogyasztóvédelmi Egyesület/ Kommission
Ein Gericht muss zwar seine Entscheidungen so begründen, dass die Bürger von ihrem Rechtsbehelf wirksam Gebrauch machen können, aber es muss nicht auf alle Argumente der Parteien detailliert antworten (vgl. u. a. EGMR, 9. Dezember 1994, Hiro Balani gegen Spanien, CE:ECHR:1994:1209JUD001806491, § 27, 9. Dezember 1994, Ruiz Torija gegen Spanien, CE:ECHR:1994:1209JUD001839091, § 30, und 27. September 2001, Hirvisaari gegen Finnland, CE:ECHR:2001:0927JUD004968499, Rn. 30). - EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 12211/09
UCHE c. SUISSE
Un pareil examen ne s'impose pas pour constater que le moyen en cause était du moins pertinent (Hiro Balani c. Espagne, 9 décembre 1994, § 28, série A no 303-B, Ruiz Torija, précité, § 30, et Vojtechová c. Slovaquie, no 59102/08, § 40, 25 septembre 2012). - EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 15256/05
TCHANKOTADZE v. GEORGIA
However, even though a domestic court has a certain margin of appreciation when choosing arguments in a particular case and admitting evidence in support of the parties" submissions, the injured party can expect a specific and express reply from the court to those submissions which are decisive for the outcome of the proceedings in question (see Hiro Balani v. Spain, 9 December 1994, §§ 27-28, Series A no. 303-B; Gradinar v. Moldova, no. 7170/02, §§ 107-108, 8 April 2008; and Gheorghe v. Romania, no. 19215/04, § 43, 15 March 2007). - EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 13431/07
FRANCESCO QUATTRONE c. ITALIE
L'étendue de cette obligation peut varier selon la nature de la décision et doit s'analyser à la lumière des circonstances de chaque espèce (Ruiz Torija c. Espagne, arrêt du 9 décembre 1994, § 29, série A no 303-A; Hiro Balani c. Espagne, arrêt du 9 décembre 1994, § 27, série A no 303-B; Higgins et autres c. France, arrêt du 19 février 1998, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1998-I, p. 60, § 42). - EGMR, 24.10.2017 - 57818/10
TIBET MENTES AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
Without requiring a detailed answer to every argument put forward by a complainant, this obligation nevertheless presupposes that a party to judicial proceedings can expect a specific and express reply to those submissions which are decisive for the outcome of the proceedings in question (ibid., § 30; see also, Hiro Balani v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 28, Series A no. 303-B; Gheorghe v. Romania, no. 19215/04, § 43, 15 March 2007; and Deryan v. Turkey, no. 41721/04, § 33, 21 July 2015). - EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 18390/91
RUIZ TORIJA c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 25.07.2002 - 45238/99
PEROTE PELLON c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 15.02.2000 - 38695/97
GARCÍA MANIBARDO c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 12.11.2020 - 19511/16
HONNER c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 12285/09
DRYZEK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 10111/06
Pedro Ramos gegen die Schweiz betreffend unentgeltliche Rechtspflege
- EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 32283/04
MELTEX LTD AND MOVSESYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 15.03.2007 - 19215/04
GHEORGHE v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 34197/02
LUKA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 13274/07
ROMAN c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 32303/13
MIROVNI INSTITUT v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 6232/09
MADER c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 7963/05
IVAN STOYANOV VASILEV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 09.05.2023 - 61177/09
KORKUT ET AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL TÜRKIYE c. TÜRKIYE
- EGMR, 06.12.2022 - 2463/12
MNATSAKANYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 16.06.2020 - 72164/14
COVALENCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 55092/16
BALTIC MASTER LTD. v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 53561/09
URAT v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 39407/03
CIHANGIR YILDIZ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 13006/13
IVINOVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 46154/11
VALLE PIERIMPIE SOCIETA AGRICOLA S.P.A. c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 25.03.2010 - 37193/07
PARASKEVA TODOROVA c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 36815/03
ATANASOVSKI v.
- EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 35738/03
SAPEYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 12686/03
Gorou ./. Griechenland
- EGMR, 19.09.2023 - 33183/07
PRIMA SH.P.K. AND KOZMAI v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 07.02.2023 - 41394/15
PAUN JOVANOVIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 01.12.2022 - 646/17
JURICIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 41870/05
FERREIRA ALVES c. PORTUGAL (N° 4)
- EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 44301/02
LOUIS c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 25053/05
FERREIRA ALVES c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 49572/99
GENITEAU contre la FRANCE
- EGMR - 3249/22 (anhängig)
JELAVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 63592/19
SALONA GRADITELJ D.D. v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 25.01.2022 - 24697/14
G I SERVICE OOD v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 54748/09
LONCA ORGANIZASYON ELEKTRONIK GIDA MEDYA YAYINCILIK SANAYI VE TICARET A.S. v. …
- EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 29842/11
MASLENNIKOV c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 46351/08
MELNIC v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 03.07.2018 - 38134/10
IONESCU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 64734/11
LEUSKA AND OTHERS v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 10375/08
S.S. YENIKÖY KONUT YAPI KOOPERATIFI v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 26.09.2017 - 24059/13
MAZZARELLA c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 76522/12
MUGOSA v. MONTENEGRO
- EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 26029/08
OREZEANU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 29.03.2016 - 9590/07
STEFANOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 51557/08
FLETTER c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 41721/04
DERYAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 11.03.2014 - 32339/05
FEISAN v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 50054/07
MITROFAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 10265/04
MOCUTA v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 15001/04
IVANOV ET PETROVA c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 30844/06
GALENA VRANISKOSKA v.
- EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 11369/04
GOLEMANOVA c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 34828/02
CARLAN c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 26732/03
ANTICA ET SOCIÉTÉ " R " c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 21468/03
RACHE ET OZON c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 36205/06
GIOSAKIS c. GRECE (N° 2)
- EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 35944/03
GASPARYAN v. ARMENIA (No. 1)
- EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 31553/03
AMIRYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 37780/02
MELTEX LTD v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 75240/01
BURZO c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 58472/00
DIMA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 06.07.2006 - 10656/03
DANYADI v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 36549/03
HARUTYUNYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 25.01.2005 - 77239/01
CASSA SARL c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 21.10.2004 - 37784/02
NOYAN TAPAN LTD v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 16.09.2003 - 56588/00
CHESNAY contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 03.05.2001 - 57735/00
GOURDON contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 07.09.1999 - 34595/97
BOSONI contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 32997/15
BULIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 44343/14
LECKA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 30543/13
NEDELCHEV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 52205/10
NICHIFOR v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 10.06.2014 - 31575/07
DURMUS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 25658/03
PASCALE c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 59102/08
VOJTECHOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 17814/10
TOURISME D'AFFAIRES c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 5450/02
ANTONESCU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 56471/08
BERGILLOS MORETON (I) c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 16.02.2010 - 31911/03
ALBERT c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 22.11.2007 - 12876/04
S.C.I. PLELO-CADIOU c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 15610/03
LEDUC c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 03.12.2002 - 35671/97
LINDNER AND HAMMERMAYER v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 50419/99
MAILLET contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 40171/98
BOONS v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34359/97
GAUCHER contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 08.06.1999 - 33051/96
BOULENGE contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 02.02.1999 - 31908/96
DRIEMOND BOUW BV v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EKMR, 16.04.1998 - 28288/95
PETERSEN v. DENMARK
- EKMR, 22.10.1997 - 31462/96
MOSTERD v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EKMR, 22.10.1997 - 32372/96
TIMMER AND 'T LAAKSE HOOGH B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EKMR, 22.10.1997 - 31469/96
VAN DER TAS v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EKMR, 10.09.1997 - 32779/96
A.L.J.G., L.C.M.G. AND H.S. v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EKMR, 21.05.1997 - 30932/96
LANDELIJKE SPECIALISTEN VERENIGING v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EKMR, 07.09.1995 - 14561/89
J.S. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 22.09.2022 - 28539/16
CVETKOVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 10.05.2022 - 2759/19
GALIER c. LUXEMBOURG
- EGMR, 05.10.2021 - 13769/15
GREGACEVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 26437/08
UGURLU AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 13196/07
UNCUOGLU v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 27524/06
VIDAKOVIC v. MONTENEGRO
- EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 12372/04
PICART c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 04.05.2004 - 45228/99
SPANG contre la SUISSE
- EGMR, 27.04.2021 - 47124/10
YILDIZ v. TURKEY
- EKMR, 14.01.1998 - 27521/95
STÜRM v. SWITZERLAND
- EKMR, 04.09.1996 - 26953/95
H.H. v. SWITZERLAND
- EKMR, 26.06.1996 - 22925/93
KÖNIG v. AUSTRIA