Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2002,38635
EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01 (https://dejure.org/2002,38635)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 05.09.2002 - 77784/01 (https://dejure.org/2002,38635)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 05. September 2002 - 77784/01 (https://dejure.org/2002,38635)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2002,38635) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

 
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 ... (148)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

  • EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 51585/99

    HORVAT v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01
    The Court recalls that in the Horvat case (see Horvat v. Croatia no. 51585/99, 26 July 2001, §§ 41-43, 45, ECHR - 2002...), it found that the proceedings pursuant to Section 59(4) of the 1999 Constitutional Court's Act were considered as being instituted only if the Constitutional Court, after a preliminary examination of the complaint, decided to admit it.

    (see Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, 26 July 2001, §§ 41-43, 45, ECHR - 2002...).

    The Court notes also that the new remedy was introduced following both the Kudla and Horvat judgments (see Kudla v. Poland, cited above and Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, ECHR 2001-VIII), and that it is specifically designed to address the problem of the length of proceedings.

  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01
    The Court reiterates that the purpose of the exhaustion rule is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to it (see, among many other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-IV).
  • EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

    BAUMANN v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01
    This rule is however subject to exceptions which might be justified by the specific circumstances of each case (see Baumann v. France, no 33592/96, 22 May 2001, § 47, unreported).
  • EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

    BRUSCO v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01
    The Court has found in respect of a large number of applications against Italy raising similar issues that there were special circumstances justifying a departure from the general rule (see Brusco v. Italy, (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX).
  • EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 18766/11

    Italien muß Rechtsrahmen für gleichgeschlechtliche Lebensgemeinschaft schaffen

    This rule is however subject to exceptions which might be justified by the specific circumstances of each case (see, for example, Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, 22 May 2001; Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII; and Mariën v. Belgium (dec.), no. 46046/99, 24 June 2004).
  • EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 17229/04

    ZIVALJEVIC v. MONTENEGRO

    Finally, the effectiveness of a particular remedy is normally assessed with reference to the date on which the application was lodged (see, for example, Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001-V (extracts)), this rule, however, being subject to exceptions which may be justified by the specific circumstances of each case (see Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII).

    Further, when the Court allowed for such an exception the remedies referred to had been recently introduced and there was no established domestic case-law confirming the effectiveness of the remedy (see Giacometti and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 34939/97, ECHR 2001-XII, Ahlskog v. Finland (dec.), no. 5238/07, § 73, 9 November 2010, Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII, Grzincic v. Slovenia, cited above, § 108, Andrásik and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), nos.

    A similar decision was taken in respect of cases introduced against Croatia following the entry into force of a constitutional amendment permitting the Constitutional Court to provide redress of both a preventive and a compensatory nature to persons complaining about undue delays in judicial proceedings (see Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII).

  • EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99

    Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere

    En particulier, la Cour s'est précédemment écartée de ce principe général par exemple dans des affaires dirigées contre l'Italie, la Croatie et la Slovaquie concernant des voies de recours pour durée excessive de la procédure (Brusco, précitée, Nogolica c. Croatie (déc.), no 77784/01, CEDH 2002-VIII, Andrásik et autres c. Slovaquie (déc.), nos 57984/00, 60226/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00 et 68563/01, CEDH 2002-IX) et dans Ä°çyer c. Turquie (déc.), (no 18888/02, CEDH 2006-I) concernant un nouveau recours indemnitaire pour ingérence dans le droit de propriété (voir aussi Charzynski c. Pologne (déc.), no 15212/03, CEDH 2005-V, et Tadeusz Michalak c. Pologne, (déc.), no 24549/03, toutes deux du 1er mars 2005).
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