Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MILOSEVIC v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 10, Art. 13 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (22)

• EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 8319/07

  SUFI AND ELMI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Court has consistently held that mere doubts as to the prospects of success of national remedies do not absolve an applicant from the obligation to exhaust those remedies (see, inter alia, Pellegrini v. Italy (dec.), no. 77363/01, 26 May 2005; MPP Golub v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 6778/05, 18 October 2005; and Milosevic v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 77631/01, 19 March 2002).
• EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 21881/20

  COMMUNAUTÉ GENEVOISE D'ACTION SYNDICALE (CGAS) c. SUISSE

  S'il est vrai que la jurisprudence nationale doit être suffisamment consolidée dans l'ordre juridique national, il se peut toujours que des situations inédites se présentent et, surtout, de simples doutes sur l'efficacité d'une voie de recours ne dispensent pas un requérant de l'exercer (Epözdemir et Bestas Epözdemir c. Turquie (déc.), nos 49425/10 et 51124/10, 22 octobre 2019, Milosevic c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 77631/01, 19 mars 2002, Pellegriti c. Italie (déc.), no 77363/01, 26 mai 2005, MPP Golub c. Ukraine (déc.), no 6778/05, 18 octobre 2005, Vuckovic et autres c. Serbie (exception préliminaire) [GC], nos 17153/11 et 29 autres, §§ 74 et 84, 25 mars 2014).
• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 17854/04

  SHESTI MAI ENGINEERING OOD AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  The existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile does not absolve an applicant from having to use his or her recourse to it (see, among other authorities, Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, § 37, Series A no. 40; Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; Milosevic v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 77631/01, 19 March 2002; and Kamburov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 14336/05, § 61 in fine, 6 January 2011).

 
• EGMR, 13.12.2022 - 40662/19

  SEVDARI v. ALBANIA

  Mere doubts on the part of the applicant regarding the effectiveness of a particular remedy will not absolve him or her from the obligation to try it (see Milosevic v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 77631/01, 19 March 2002; Vuckovic and Others, cited above, §§ 74 and 84; and Zihni v. Turkey (dec.), no. 59061/16, §§ 23 and 30, 29 November 2016).
• EGMR, 10.09.2013 - 663/11

  NEDYALKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  However, the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to have recourse to it (see, among other authorities, Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; Milosevic v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 77631/01, 19 March 2002; Kane v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 33655/06, 13 September 2011; Miler, cited above, § 21; and Vomocil and Art. 38, a.s., cited above, § 47).
• EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 22465/03

  SANDRU ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  La solution doit être la même pour le transfert vers une juridiction pénale internationale (voir, mutatis mutandis, décision Milosevic c. Pays Bas, no 77631/01, 19 mars 2002, où la requête a été déclarée irrecevable pour faute d'épuisement des voies internes de recours, et non pas comme incompatible ratione materiae avec la Convention), car le fait qu'un Etat a d'autres engagements internationaux que la Convention ne le délie pas de son obligation d'assurer le respect des droits garantis par la Convention à toute personne relevant de sa juridiction (e.g. et, mutatis mutandis, Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi c. Irlande [GC], no 45036/98, CEDH 2005-VI).
• EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 9873/11

  WASIEWSKA v. POLAND

  The Court has consistently held that mere doubts as to the prospects of success of national remedies do not absolve an applicant from the obligation to exhaust those remedies (see, inter alia, Pellegrini v. Italy (dec.), no. 77363/01, 26 May 2005; MPP Golub v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 6778/05, 18 October 2005; and Milosevic v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 77631/01, 19 March 2002).
• EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 9909/10

  S.S. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Court has consistently held that mere doubts as to the prospects of success of national remedies do not absolve an applicant from the obligation to exhaust those remedies (see, inter alia, Pellegrini v. Italy (dec.), no. 77363/01, 26 May 2005; MPP Golub v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 6778/05, 18 October 2005; and Milosevic v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 77631/01, 19 March 2002).
• EGMR, 29.01.2014 - 31721/10

  N.M. c. FRANCE

  L'article 35 doit aussi être appliqué en tenant compte de la réalité de la situation du requérant pour assurer une protection effective des droits et libertés garantis par la Convention (voir, entre autres, Pellegriti c. Italie (déc.), no 77363/01, 26 mai 2005 ; MPP Golub c. Ukraine (déc.), no 6778/05, 18 octobre 2005 ; et Milosevic c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 77631/01, 19 mars 2002).
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 71072/01

  LEJA v. LATVIA

  In this regard the Court notes that it has previously held on multiple occasions that the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust domestic remedies (see, for example, Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 45, ECHR 2006-II; Milosevic v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 77631/01, 19 March 2002; and Pellegriti v. Italy (dec.), no. 77363/01, 26 May 2005).
• EGMR, 29.06.2017 - 77248/12

  DIMCHO DIMOV v. BULGARIA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 74946/10

  BROGAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 27770/08

  ABDI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 12959/05

  MAGO AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
• EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 22669/10

  ALI v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 14217/10

  STRZELECKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 5044/04

  SVOBODEN ZHELEZNICHARSKI SINDIKAT 'PROMYANA' v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 6051/07

  NELISSEN v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 28.01.2010 - 30122/03

  SIMEONOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 43028/05

  PARRILLO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 55120/09

  AGALAR v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 41767/11

  J.A.T. AND J.B.T. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM