Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=02.09.2014&Aktenzeichen=19312/07
Timestamp: 2019-05-23 08:18:29
Document Index: 251954598

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 37', 'Art. 37', 'Art. 1', '§ 79', '§ 34', '§ 1', '§ 75', '§ 34', '§ 34', '§ 22']

EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 19312/07 - dejure.org
EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 19312/07
https://dejure.org/2014,26818
EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 19312/07 (https://dejure.org/2014,26818)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 02.09.2014 - 19312/07 (https://dejure.org/2014,26818)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 02. September 2014 - 19312/07 (https://dejure.org/2014,26818)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2014,26818) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
TCHAGHIASHVILI v. GEORGIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
Partly struck out of the list Partly inadmissible (englisch)
EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 38951/13
ABRAMYAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
In these circumstances, the Court considers that the dismissal of their cassation appeal by a single judge of the Supreme Court cannot be considered as an unreasonable limitation of their right to have access to court (see Kart v. Turkey [GC], no. 8917/05, § 79, ECHR 2009 (extracts), and Tchaghishvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 19312/07, § 34, 2 September 2014, with numerous further references).
As regards the complaint about access to the Supreme Court, the Court restates that the same issue was already examined in the context of the relevant Georgian procedural law and practice and found to have been, in similar factual circumstances, fully compatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Kuparadze v. Georgia, no. 30743/09, §§ 75-77, 21 September 2017; and compare, mutatis mutandis, Tchaghiashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 19312/07, § 34, 2 September 2014.).
EGMR, 21.09.2017 - 30743/09
KUPARADZE v. GEORGIA
The Court has found on several occasions that the introduction and application of admissibility requirements in respect of appeals on points of law lodged with courts of cassation pursue a legitimate aim in the interests of good administration of justice (see Tchaghiashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 19312/07, § 34, 2 September 2014; Nersesyan, cited above, § 22; and Borisenko and Yerevanyan Bazalt Ltd v. Armenia (dec.), no. 18297/08, 14 April 2009).