Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=21.06.2016&Aktenzeichen=15256/05
Timestamp: 2019-07-23 16:49:50
Document Index: 773624986

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 102', '§ 114', '§ 7', '§ 84', '§ 103', '§ 33', '§ 134', '§ 29', '§ 29', '§ 103', '§ 120', '§ 111']

EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 15256/05 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2016,15421
EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 15256/05 (https://dejure.org/2016,15421)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21.06.2016 - 15256/05 (https://dejure.org/2016,15421)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21. Juni 2016 - 15256/05 (https://dejure.org/2016,15421)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,15421) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-1 - Six month period;Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)
EGMR, 14.11.2018 - 15256/05
According to the Court's established case-law reflecting a principle linked to the proper administration of justice, judgments of courts and tribunals should adequately state the reasons on which they are based (see Tchankotadze v. Georgia, no. 15256/05, § 102, 21 June 2016).
See also Joint Concurring Opinion of judges Sajó, Tsotsoria and Pinto de Albuquerque and Concurring Opinion of judge Kuris in the case Tchankotadze v. Georgia, no. 15256/05, 21 June 2016; as well as Joint Concurring Opinion of judges Jungwiert, Nußberger and Potocki in the case Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, 30 April 2013.
More recently, in the case of Tchankotadze v. Georgia (no. 15256/05, §§ 114-15, 21 June 2016), the Court found that public threats that the applicant, a high-ranking civil servant, would be "jailed", uttered by Mr Saakashvili, then a presidential candidate and later elected, were insufficient to find an ulterior purpose behind his prosecution and related pre-trial detention, in the absence of proof that the prosecuting or judicial authorities had themselves been driven by political motives.
This is due largely to the accessory nature of the provision and to the high standard of proof required under it, which has rightly been criticised by some of my colleagues (see, inter alia, Tchankotadze v. Georgia, no. 15256/05, 21 June 2016, joint concurring opinion of Judges Sajó, Tsotsoria and Pinto de Albuquerque, §§ 7-10, and, in the same judgment, the concurring opinion of Judge Kuris)[4].
Without requiring a detailed answer to every argument advanced by the complainant, this obligation presupposes that parties to judicial proceedings can expect to receive a specific and explicit reply to the arguments which are decisive for the outcome of those proceedings (see Moreira Ferreira, cited above, § 84; see also Tchankotadze v. Georgia, no. 15256/05, § 103, 21 June 2016, and Deryan v. Turkey, no. 41721/04, § 33, 21 July 2015).
The Court further reiterates that in the absence of any additional financial documents confirming that the relevant financial transaction has actually, truly occurred, mere billing requests from lawyers cannot normally be taken as a proof that the legal costs and expenses claimed have "actually and necessarily" been incurred by the applicants themselves (see Tchankotadze v. Georgia, no. 15256/05, § 134, 21 June 2016).
EGMR, 13.07.2017 - 7202/09
NIKOLAY GENOV v. BULGARIA
While courts are not obliged to give a detailed answer to every argument raised, it must be clear from the decision that the essential issues of the case have been addressed (see Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 29, Series A no. 303-A; Boldea v. Romania, no. 19997/02, §§ 29-30, 15 February 2007; and Tchankotadze v. Georgia, no. 15256/05, § 103, 21 June 2016).
However, the application was lodged on 8 September 2006, that is, more than six months after the delivery of the final domestic decision of 10 November 2005 (see, for a similar conclusion in identical situations, Tchankotadze v. Georgia, no. 15256/05, § 120, 21 June 2016, and Aliev, cited above, §§ 111 and 112).