Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 8406/06 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2014,21666) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
STICHTING OSTADE BLADE v. THE NETHERLANDS
Sonstiges
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 8406/06
- EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 8406/06
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 25.02.2003 - 51772/99
ROEMEN AND SCHMIT v. LUXEMBOURG
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 8406/06
The Court finds that the order to hand over the letter, which was followed by a search of the applicant foundation's premises when it was not obeyed, constituted an interference with the applicant foundation's right to "receive and impart information", as set out in Article 10 § 1 (see, among other authorities, Roemen and Schmit v. Luxembourg, no. 51772/99, § 47, ECHR 2003-IV; and Sanoma, cited above, § 72). - EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 45276/99
Tansania, CUF, Civic United Front, Oppositionelle, Inhaftierung, Folter, …
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 8406/06
The fact that it did not do so is not a material consideration since the effectiveness of a remedy for the purposes of Article 13 does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see, among many other authorities, Hilal v. the United Kingdom, no. 45276/99, § 77, ECHR 2001-II).
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 8406/06 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,1925) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 8406/06
- EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 8406/06
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 25256/05
HVALICA v. SLOVENIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 8406/06
As to the question whether the applicants have exhausted all domestic remedies the Court notes that the complaints intended to be subsequently made to the Court should have been made to the domestic courts at least in substance (see, among many other authorities, Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, § 39, Series A no. 40; Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200; Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 66, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III; Paksas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 34932/04, § 75, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and as a recent example, Hvalica v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 25256/05, 22 May 2012). - EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84
CARDOT c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 8406/06
As to the question whether the applicants have exhausted all domestic remedies the Court notes that the complaints intended to be subsequently made to the Court should have been made to the domestic courts at least in substance (see, among many other authorities, Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, § 39, Series A no. 40; Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200; Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 66, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III; Paksas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 34932/04, § 75, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and as a recent example, Hvalica v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 25256/05, 22 May 2012). - EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76
VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 8406/06
As to the question whether the applicants have exhausted all domestic remedies the Court notes that the complaints intended to be subsequently made to the Court should have been made to the domestic courts at least in substance (see, among many other authorities, Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, § 39, Series A no. 40; Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200; Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 66, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III; Paksas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 34932/04, § 75, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and as a recent example, Hvalica v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 25256/05, 22 May 2012).