Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SARUKHANYAN v. ARMENIA

  Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Partly admissible Violation of P1-3 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 38978/03
• EGMR, 10.09.2014 - 38978/03

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

  MATHIEU-MOHIN ET CLERFAYT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 38978/03

  Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 enshrines a fundamental principle for effective political democracy, and is accordingly of prime importance in the Convention system (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 113, p. 22, § 47).
• EGMR, 28.10.1998 - 24760/94

  ASSENOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 38978/03

  In order to comply with the rule, normal recourse should be had by an applicant to remedies which are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria no. 24760/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 25144/94

  Leyla Zana

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 38978/03

  25144/94, 26149/95 to 26154/95, 27100/95 and 27101/95, § 31, ECHR 2002-IV).

 
• EGMR, 09.04.2002 - 46726/99

  PODKOLZINA c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 38978/03

  None of these criteria should, however, be considered more valid than any other provided that it guarantees the expression of the will of the people through free, fair and regular elections (see Podkolzina v. Latvia, no. 46726/99, § 33, ECHR 2002-II; and Gitonas and Others v. Greece, judgment of 1 July 1997, Reports 1997-IV, pp. 1233-34, § 39).
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

  DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 38978/03

  Furthermore, the existence of remedies which are available and sufficient 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, among other authorities, De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 19, § 39; and Vernillo v. France, judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, pp. 11-12, § 27).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 55066/00

  RUSSIAN CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF ENTREPRENEURS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 38978/03

  Consequently, while States have a wide margin of appreciation when establishing eligibility criteria, nevertheless, in order for rights to be effective, any candidate's failure to meet such criteria must be determined in accordance with procedures that contain sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness (see Podkolzina, cited above, § 35; Melnychenko v. Ukraine, no. 17707/02, § 59, ECHR 2004-X; and Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others v. Russia, nos. 55066/00 and 55638/00, § 50, 11 January 2007).