Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 30.03.2009 - 19324/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2009,33568
EGMR, 30.03.2009 - 19324/02 (https://dejure.org/2009,33568)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30.03.2009 - 19324/02 (https://dejure.org/2009,33568)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30. März 2009 - 19324/02 (https://dejure.org/2009,33568)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,33568) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

Sonstiges

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (63)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

  • BVerfG, 21.06.1977 - 1 BvL 14/76

    Lebenslange Freiheitsstrafe

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2009 - 19324/02
    German Constitutional Court, 21 June 1977, BVerfGE 45, 187; EuGRZ 1977, 267.
  • EGMR, 29.05.2001 - 63716/00

    SAWONIUK contre le ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2009 - 19324/02
    Kafkaris, cited above, § 97; see also Nivette c. France (dec.), no. 44190/98, ECHR 2001-VII; Einhorn v. France (dec.), no. 71555/01, ECHR 2001-XI; Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI; Partington v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 58853/00, 26 June 2003; Stanford v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 73299/01, 12 December 2002; and Wynne v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 67385/01, 22 May 2003.
  • EGMR, 03.07.2001 - 44190/98

    NIVETTE contre la FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2009 - 19324/02
    Kafkaris, cited above, § 97; see also Nivette c. France (dec.), no. 44190/98, ECHR 2001-VII; Einhorn v. France (dec.), no. 71555/01, ECHR 2001-XI; Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI; Partington v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 58853/00, 26 June 2003; Stanford v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 73299/01, 12 December 2002; and Wynne v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 67385/01, 22 May 2003.
     
  • EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 71555/01

    EINHORN c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2009 - 19324/02
    Kafkaris, cited above, § 97; see also Nivette c. France (dec.), no. 44190/98, ECHR 2001-VII; Einhorn v. France (dec.), no. 71555/01, ECHR 2001-XI; Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI; Partington v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 58853/00, 26 June 2003; Stanford v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 73299/01, 12 December 2002; and Wynne v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 67385/01, 22 May 2003.
  • EGMR, 12.12.2002 - 73299/01

    STANFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2009 - 19324/02
    Kafkaris, cited above, § 97; see also Nivette c. France (dec.), no. 44190/98, ECHR 2001-VII; Einhorn v. France (dec.), no. 71555/01, ECHR 2001-XI; Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI; Partington v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 58853/00, 26 June 2003; Stanford v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 73299/01, 12 December 2002; and Wynne v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 67385/01, 22 May 2003.
  • EGMR, 26.06.2003 - 58853/00

    PARTINGTON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2009 - 19324/02
    Kafkaris, cited above, § 97; see also Nivette c. France (dec.), no. 44190/98, ECHR 2001-VII; Einhorn v. France (dec.), no. 71555/01, ECHR 2001-XI; Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI; Partington v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 58853/00, 26 June 2003; Stanford v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 73299/01, 12 December 2002; and Wynne v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 67385/01, 22 May 2003.
  • EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 2476/02

    THÉVENON c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2009 - 19324/02
    On the other hand, it has been the Court's practice to strike applications out of the list of cases in the absence of any heir or close relative who has expressed the wish to pursue an application (see, among other authorities, Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 287; Öhlinger v. Austria, no. 21444/93, Commission's report of 14 January 1997, § 15; and Thévenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-III).
  • EKMR, 02.07.1996 - 21444/93

    ÖHLINGER v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2009 - 19324/02
    On the other hand, it has been the Court's practice to strike applications out of the list of cases in the absence of any heir or close relative who has expressed the wish to pursue an application (see, among other authorities, Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 287; Öhlinger v. Austria, no. 21444/93, Commission's report of 14 January 1997, § 15; and Thévenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-III).
  • EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

    RAIMONDO v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2009 - 19324/02
    It also notes that in a number of cases in which an applicant died in the course of the proceedings it has taken into account the statements of the applicant's heirs or of close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings (see Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, §§ 37-38, Series A no. 35; X v. the United Kingdom, 5 November 1981, § 32, Series A no. 46; Vocaturo v. Italy, 24 May 1991, § 2, Series A no. 206-C; G. v. Italy, 27 February 1992, § 2, Series A no. 228-F; Pandolfelli and Palumbo v. Italy, 27 February 1992, § 2, Series A no. 231-B; X v. France, 31 March 1992, § 26, Series A no. 234-C; and Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 2, Series A no. 281-A), or the existence of a legitimate interest claimed by a person wishing to pursue the application (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII).
  • EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

    GUZZARDI v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2009 - 19324/02
    "[t]he Court has repeatedly stated that its 'judgments in fact serve not only to decide those cases brought before the Court but, more generally, to elucidate, safeguard and develop the rules instituted by the Convention, thereby contributing to the observance by the States of the engagements undertaken by them as Contracting Parties' (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, cited above, p. 62, § 154, and Guzzardi v. Italy, judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, p. 31, § 86).
  • EGMR, 25.03.1994 - 17116/90

    SCHERER v. SWITZERLAND

  • EGMR, 31.03.1992 - 18020/91

    X c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

    DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  • EGMR, 05.11.1981 - 7215/75

    X v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 27765/09

    Italiens Flüchtlingspolitik: Rechte auch auf hoher See

    It points out that the practice of the Court is to strike applications out of the list when an applicant dies during the course of the proceedings and no heir or close relative wishes to pursue the case (see, among other authorities, Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 287; Öhlinger v. Austria, no. 21444/93, Commission Report of 14 January 1997, § 15; Thévenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-III; and Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, § 44, 30 March 2009).
  • EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 25551/05

    KOROLEV c. RUSSIE

    The Court has thus been frequently led, under Articles 37 and 38, to verify that the general problem raised by the case had been or was being remedied and that similar legal issues had been resolved by the Court in other cases (see, among many others, Can v. Austria, 30 September 1985, §§ 15-18, Series A no. 96, and Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, § 51, ECHR 2009-...).
  • EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 24027/07

    Babar Ahmad u.a. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

    The Government relied on the Court's rulings in Kafkaris and Léger v. France, no. 19324/02, ECHR 2006-..., and the United Kingdom court's rulings in Wellington and Bieber (see paragraphs 64-72 and 144 above).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht