The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his or her civil rights or obligations brought before a court or tribunal.

The court noted that the first applicant, as the debtor’s legal representative, had sought that the hearing be adjourned so that the debtor and the creditor could establish the exact amount of the debt

administrative court since the true extent of that damage was only brought to light during the course of the proceedings by an expert report ordered ex officio by the court.

    The Court concludes that the applicant suffered a disproportionate burden in exercising his right to access to a court.

However, the Constitutional Court did not clarify in what way a party could provide positive proof of the date of first notification (compare Aždajić   v.

The court noted that the employees of the company did in fact have access to their work schedules – they could consult them in the binders at the office and were informed by telephone and SMS.

Armenia , no. 32283/04, § 88, 17 June 2008 the Court] has stated, with regard to the reasoning of a Court of Cassation’s decision...that “...the Court of Cassation’s competence was limited only to examination

    However, it seems obvious that the reason that the applicant lodged a complaint with the court was precisely because the parties could not reach an agreement with regard to the area of land

    The Court reiterates that it has already examined and dismissed the Government’s preliminary objection in similar cases, holding that the applicants could not be expected to lodge successful

of his siblings in the proceedings before this Court.

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

    The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article   6.

The Court observed that the Federal Court of Justice’s finding that the appeal was lodged out of time was primarily based on the fact that the applicant had addressed his written appeal to the wrong court

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

    On 23 June 2021 the applicant applied to the Constitutional Court, complaining, among other things, that her right of access to a court had been violated. 11.

The Government submitted examples to the Court of domestic court decisions in which premature claims had been brought before the contested acts had taken effect.

The applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the Tirana Appeal Court on 8 November 2013. The applicant then brought a further appeal with the Supreme Court which dismissed it on 25 May 2015. 2.

Monsieur X, pour l’association Aquavit, a saisi la commission d'accès aux documents administratifs, par courrier enregistré à son secrétariat le 16 décembre 2016, à la suite du refus opposé par le directeur

The Court finds that by adopting a decision directly affecting the applicant company’s rights without involving it in the proceedings, the Supreme Court of Justice disregarded its right of access to a