Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KADIKIS contre la LETTONIE

  Art. 10, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (8)

• EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 55508/07

  Massaker von Katyn

  The Court has explicitly acknowledged the principle of the non-retroactive nature of the Convention and applied it consistently for many years (see, for example, the decision in KadiÄ·is v. Latvia, no. 47634/99, 29 June 2000, and the judgment in Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, ECHR 2006-III, and the case-law cited in that judgment).
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 32794/07

  MATCZYNSKI v. POLAND

  The Government submitted that, in accordance with the general rules of international law, the provisions of the Convention and its Protocol did not bind a Contracting Party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any situation which ceased to exist before the date of the entry into force of the Convention and its Protocols with respect to that Party (see KadiÄ is v. Latvia (dec.), no. 47634/99, judgment of 29 June 2000).
• EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 37780/02

  MELTEX LTD v. ARMENIA

  306-308; Kefalas and Others v. Greece, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 318-A, § 45; Kadikis v. Latvia (dec.), no. 47634/99, 29 June 2000; Veeber v. Estonia (no. 1), no. 37571/97, § 55, 7 November 2002; Jovanovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 59109/00, ECHR 2002-III; Litovchenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 69580/01, 18 April 2002; and Blecic, cited above).

 
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 20979/07

  VELIMIROVIC v. MONTENEGRO

  The Court recalls that, in accordance with the general rules of international law, the provisions of the Convention do not bind a Contracting Party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any situation which ceased to exist before the date of the entry into force of the Convention with respect to that Party (see, for example, KadiÄ is v. Latvia (dec.), no. 47634/99, 29 June 2000).
• EGMR, 28.02.2002 - 59109/00

  JOVANOVIC contre la CROATIE

  204, 208 and Kadikis v. Latvia (dec.), no. 47634/99, 29 June 2000).
• EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 22674/11

  KRIZMANIC v. CROATIA

  The Court reiterates that, in accordance with the general rules of international law, the provisions of the Convention do not bind a Contracting Party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any situation which ceased to exist before the date of the entry into force of the Convention with respect to that Party (see, for example, KadiÄ is v. Latvia (dec.), no. 47634/99, 29 June 2000; and Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 70, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 59532/00

  BLECIC v. CROATIA

  204, 208 and Kadikis v. Latvia (dec.), no. 47634/99, 29 June 2000 and Jovanovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 59109/00, 28 February 2002, ECHR - 2002...).
• EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 151/03

  KERIMOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  At the same time it would render Azerbaijan's declaration recognising the Court's competence to receive individual applications nugatory (see Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 77-79, ECHR 2006-...; Kadikis v. Latvia (dec), no. 47634/99, 29 June 2000; Stamoulakatos v. Greece (no. 1), judgment of 26 October 1993, Series A no. 271, § 33).