Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIKOLAJOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 8 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 4479/03
• EGMR, 24.02.2016 - 4479/03

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (23)

• EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 28070/06

  A. v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 4479/03

  However, the conclusion above does not prevent the Court from taking into account the interests sought to be protected by Article 6 § 2 in the balancing exercise carried out below (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 65 and A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 47, 9 April 2009).

  The Court explained its approach to such cases in its judgment in A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 64, 9 April 2009, holding that in order for Article 8 to come into play, the attack on personal honour and reputation must attain a certain level of gravity and in a manner causing prejudice to personal enjoyment of the right to respect for private life (see Sidabras and Dziautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, § 49, ECHR 2004-VIII).

• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 4479/03

  It may thus be defined as "the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence", a definition that also corresponds to the test whether "the situation of the [suspect] has been substantially affected" (see, for example, the Deweer v. Belgium judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 22, § 42, and p. 24, § 46; and the Eckle v. Germany judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 33, § 73, cited in Serves v. France, 20 October 1997, § 42, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI).
• EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

  König ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 4479/03

  The legislation of the State concerned is certainly relevant, but it provides no more than a starting point in ascertaining whether at any time there was a "criminal charge" against the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, the Engel and Others v. the Netherlands judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, p. 35, § 82, and the König v. Germany judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, p. 30, § 89).

 
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 4479/03

  The existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness; it falls to the respondent State to establish that these various conditions are satisfied (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 74 and 75, ECHR 1999-V, among other authorities).
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 4479/03

  It may thus be defined as "the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence", a definition that also corresponds to the test whether "the situation of the [suspect] has been substantially affected" (see, for example, the Deweer v. Belgium judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 22, § 42, and p. 24, § 46; and the Eckle v. Germany judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 33, § 73, cited in Serves v. France, 20 October 1997, § 42, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI).
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 55480/00

  SIDABRAS ET DZIAUTAS c. LITUANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 4479/03

  The Court explained its approach to such cases in its judgment in A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 64, 9 April 2009, holding that in order for Article 8 to come into play, the attack on personal honour and reputation must attain a certain level of gravity and in a manner causing prejudice to personal enjoyment of the right to respect for private life (see Sidabras and Dziautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, § 49, ECHR 2004-VIII).
• EGMR, 26.03.1982 - 8269/78

  Adolf ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 4479/03

  In particular, the applicant's situation under the domestic legal rules in force has to be examined in the light of the object and purpose of Article 6, namely the protection of the rights of the defence (see the Court's judgment in the case of Adolf v. Austria, 26 March 1982, § 30, Series A no. 49).
• EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99

  Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 4479/03

  46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 and 21819/04, §§ 69-70, ECHR 2010-...).
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 4479/03

  Accordingly, it has recognised that Article 35 must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism (see Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200, § 34).
• EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 52067/99

  OKKALI c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 4479/03

  In this connection, the Court recalls that an applicant who has exhausted a remedy that is apparently effective and sufficient cannot be required also to have tried others that were available but probably no more likely to be successful (see T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 34, 29 April 1999, Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 60, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts) and Lazoroski v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", no. 4922/04, § 37, 8 October 2009, among other authorities).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

  VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 7604/76

  FOTI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 34147/06

  POLANCO TORRES ET MOVILLA POLANCO c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 3843/02
• EGMR - 10200/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR - 14163/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR - 19993/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR - 21819/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR - 13466/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.06.2004 - 64915/01

  CHAUVY AND OTHERS v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 39311/05

  KARAKO v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 59330/00
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25644/94

  T.W. v. MALTA