Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
McFARLANE c. IRLANDE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Exception préliminaire jointe au fond et rejetée (non-épuisement des voies de recours internes) Partiellement irrecevable Violation de l'art. 13 Violation de l'art. 6-1 Préjudice moral - réparation (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
McFARLANE v. IRELAND
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
(englisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
McFARLANE v. IRELAND - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial ...
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)
McFarlane v. Ireland
[03.03.2010]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06
- EGMR, 01.10.2020 - 31333/06
Wird zitiert von ... (119) Neu Zitiert selbst (25)
- EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78
Eckle ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06
Since this Court holds a State responsible under the "reasonable time" aspect of Article 6 § 1 for delay by judges in delivering their judgments (see, for example, Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 84, Series A no. 51; O'Reilly v Ireland, no. 21624/93, Commission's report of 22 February 1995, §§ 65-66; Somjee v. the United Kingdom, no. 42116/98, § 72, 15 October 2002; Obasa v. the United Kingdom, no. 50034/99, § 34, 16 January 2003; O'Reilly and Others v. Ireland, no. 54725/00, § 33, 29 July 2004; and McMullen v. Ireland, no. 42297/98, § 39, 29 July 2004), a remedy which does not apply to this form of delay cannot be considered an effective one within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention.In his opinion, the Court should look behind Eckle v. Germany (15 July 1982, Series A no. 51), develop the approach begun in Deweer v. Belgium (27 February 1980, Series A no. 35) and accept that there were special circumstances why the length of the criminal proceedings began at the end of 1983/beginning of 1984 namely, the mala fides and conduct of the prosecution prior to his arrest.
- EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 46344/06
RUMPF ET 70 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE L'ALLEMAGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06
The Court recalls its constant case law to the effect that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant (for example, Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 128, ECHR 2006-VII)."Remedies available to a litigant at domestic level for raising a complaint about length of proceedings are "effective"... if they prevent the alleged violation or its continuation, or provide adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred (Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, ECHR 2006-V; Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 65, ECHR 2006-VII; and Kudla v. Poland, cited above, §§ 157 to 159).
- EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06
The effect of Article 13 is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an "arguable complaint" under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief (Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI).In Kudla v. Poland ([GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI) the Court confirmed that the purpose of Article 35 § 1, which sets out the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies, "is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court".
- EGMR, 29.07.2004 - 54725/00
O'REILLY AND OTHERS v. IRELAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06
Chapter 4 of the Report is entitled "Time-limits and International Obligations" and noted that Ireland had been found in breach of Article 6 of the Convention (McMullen v. Ireland, no. 42297/98, 29 July 2004; Doran v. Ireland, no. 50389/99, ECHR 2003-X (extracts); O'Reilly and Others v. Ireland, no. 54725/00, 29 July 2004; and Barry v. Ireland, cited above).However, the [ECHR] in [O'Reilly and Others v. Ireland, no. 54725/00, 29 July 2004] found that this did not constitute an adequate remedy.
- EGMR, 29.07.2004 - 42297/98
McMULLEN v. IRELAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06
Chapter 4 of the Report is entitled "Time-limits and International Obligations" and noted that Ireland had been found in breach of Article 6 of the Convention (McMullen v. Ireland, no. 42297/98, 29 July 2004; Doran v. Ireland, no. 50389/99, ECHR 2003-X (extracts); O'Reilly and Others v. Ireland, no. 54725/00, 29 July 2004; and Barry v. Ireland, cited above).The remedy available before this development was considered by the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of [Barry v Ireland, cited above, Doran v. Ireland, no. 50389/99, ECHR 2003-X (extracts); O'Reilly v. Ireland, cited above; and McMullen v. Ireland, no. 42297/98, 29 July 2004].
- EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 50389/99
DORAN v. IRELAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06
Chapter 4 of the Report is entitled "Time-limits and International Obligations" and noted that Ireland had been found in breach of Article 6 of the Convention (McMullen v. Ireland, no. 42297/98, 29 July 2004; Doran v. Ireland, no. 50389/99, ECHR 2003-X (extracts); O'Reilly and Others v. Ireland, no. 54725/00, 29 July 2004; and Barry v. Ireland, cited above).The remedy available before this development was considered by the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of [Barry v Ireland, cited above, Doran v. Ireland, no. 50389/99, ECHR 2003-X (extracts); O'Reilly v. Ireland, cited above; and McMullen v. Ireland, no. 42297/98, 29 July 2004].
- EGMR, 14.09.2011 - 44978/98
BERLIN ET 7 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LE LUXEMBOURG
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06
The consistent approach of this Court as articulated and reiterated by the Grand Chamber in Selmouni v. France ([GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V), has been that the complaint which an applicant intends to make subsequently to this Court must first have been made to the appropriate domestic body. - EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01
STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06
The applicant did not suggest that any costs order in those actions in favour of the State has been pursued against him so that it is unnecessary to make any provision under Article 41 in that respect (Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 105, ECHR 2005-II). - EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96
ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75
DEWEER c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 02.12.1999 - 32082/96
Überprüfung der Länge eines in Portugal anhängigen Strafverfahrens durch den …
- EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01
NOGOLICA c. CROATIE
- EKMR, 05.03.1990 - 12659/87
GAMA DA COSTA v. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87
PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE
- EGMR, 26.03.2002 - 48215/99
LUTZ c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57950/00
ISAYEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 26867/02
GRZINCIC c. SLOVENIE
- EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 30132/04
ILIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 40383/04
VIDAS v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 20.02.2003 - 47316/99
Rechtssache F.-N. gegen DEUTSCHLAND
- EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98
Enteignung eines Gemäldes in Tschechien auf Grund der Benes-Dekrete - …
- EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00
MIFSUD contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 58698/00
PAULINO TOMAS contre le PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 30273/07
LEANDRO DA SILVA c. LUXEMBOURG
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07
ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Less than full application of the guarantees of Article 13 in this context would unacceptably weaken the effective functioning, on the national and international level, of the scheme of human rights protection set up by the Convention (see Finger, cited above, § 121, and McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 112, ECHR 2010-..., with further references). - EuGH, 05.06.2018 - C-612/15
Kolev u.a. - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Art. 325 AEUV - Betrügereien oder …
Im Bereich des Strafrechts ist dieses Recht nicht nur im gerichtlichen Verfahren, sondern auch im Ermittlungsverfahren zu beachten, sobald der Betroffene einer Beschuldigung ausgesetzt ist (vgl. entsprechend EGMR, 15. Juli 2002, Affaire stratégies et communications und Dumoulin/Belgien, CE:ECHR:2002:0715JUD003737097, § 39, sowie EGMR, 10. September 2010, McFarlane/Irland, CE:ECHR:2010:0910JUD003133306, § 143). - EGMR, 08.09.2011 - 7812/04
SUPERWOOD HOLDINGS PLC AND OTHERS v. IRELAND
The Court's recalls its conclusion in McFarlane v. Ireland ([GC], no. 31333/06, § 128, ECHR 2010-...) that such an action did not constitute an effective remedy available in theory and in practice within the meaning of Article 13 in a case concerning the length of criminal proceedings.In this respect, the Court recalls in particular that, contrary to the Government's submission, even a principle of domestic law that parties to civil proceedings are required to take the initiative to progress the proceedings, does not dispense a State from the requirement to organise its system to deal with cases within a reasonable period of time: if a State allows proceedings to continue beyond a "reasonable time" without doing anything to advance them, it will be responsible for the resultant delay (Foley v. the United Kingdom, no. 39197/98, § 40, 22 October 2002; Price and Lowe v. the United Kingdom, nos. 43185/98 and 43186/98, § 23, 29 July 2003 as cited in McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 152, ECHR 2010-...).
[1] McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, 10 September 2010.
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 23.09.2020 - C-83/19
Nach Auffassung von Generalanwalt Bobek verstoßen die vorläufige Ernennung des …
160 Vgl. u. a. EGMR, 10. September 2010, McFarlane/Irland (CE:ECHR:2010:0910JUD003133306, § 140). - EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 18393/09
PANJU c. BELGIQUE
En ce qui concerne l'action en responsabilité contre l'État, la Cour estime que la question de savoir si le requérant était obligé d'introduire une telle action avant de saisir la Cour est étroitement liée à celle de l'existence d'un recours effectif au sens de l'article 13 de la Convention (voir Sürmeli c. Allemagne (déc.), no 75529/01, 29 avril 2004, McFarlane c. Irlande [GC], no 31333/06, § 75, 10 septembre 2010, et Vlad et autres c. Roumanie, nos 40756/06, 41508/07 et 50806/07, § 103, 26 novembre 2013).Si le premier type de recours est préférable car il est de nature préventive, un recours indemnitaire peut passer pour effectif lorsque la procédure a déjà connu une durée excessive et qu'il n'existe pas de recours préventif'(McFarlane c. Irlande [GC], no 31333/06, § 108).
- EGMR, 17.09.2014 - 10865/09
MOCANU ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
46113/99 et al, § 69, ECHR 2010; McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 107, 10 September 2010; and Vuckovic and Others, cited above, § 77). - EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 60908/11
BRINCAT AND OTHERS v. MALTA
The only remedies which Article 35 § 1 requires to be exhausted are those which relate to the alleged breach and which are available and sufficient (see McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 107, 10 September 2010), that is to say a remedy that offers the chance of redressing the alleged breach and is not a pure repetition of a remedy already exhausted (see Dreiblats v. Latvia (dec.), no. 8283/07, 4 June 2013). - EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 36318/21
RIZZO AND OTHERS v. MALTA
In the context of Article 13, the Court's role is to determine whether, in the light of the parties' submissions, the proposed remedies constituted effective remedies which were available to the applicant in theory as well as in practice, that is to say, that they were accessible, capable of providing redress and offered reasonable prospects of success (ibid., § 32, and McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 114, 10 September 2010). - EGMR, 30.04.2020 - 72060/17
KEANEY v. IRELAND
Execution of judgment in McFarlane v. Ireland Judgment in McFarlane v. Ireland 60. In McFarlane v. Ireland ([GC], no. 31333/06, 10 September 2010), which concerned a criminal prosecution which lasted for ten years and six months from the time the applicant was charged to the completion of the criminal proceedings, this Court held that the overall length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see §§ 140-156).[2] See variously Doran v. Ireland, no. 50389/99, ECHR 2003 X (extracts) (civil; plus Article 13); McMullen v. Ireland, no. 42297/98, 29 July 2004 (civil); O'Reilly and Others v. Ireland, no. 54725/00, 29 July 2004 (civil; plus Article 13); Barry v. Ireland, no. 18273/04, 15 December 2005 (criminal; plus Article 13); McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, 10 September 2010 (criminal; plus Article 13); Superwood Holdings Plc and Others v. Ireland, no. 7812/04, 8 September 2011 (civil); T.H. v. Ireland, no. 37868/06, 8 December 2011 (criminal; plus Article 13); O. v. Ireland, no. 43838/07, 19 January 2012 (criminal); C. v. Ireland, no. 24643/08, 1 March 2012 (criminal); Rooney v. Ireland, no. 32614/10, 31 October 2013 (civil; plus Article 13); Healy v. Ireland, no. 27291/16, 18 January 2018 (civil; plus Article 13); O'Leary v. Ireland, no. 45580/16, 14 February 2019 (civil; plus Article 13).
- EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 13630/19
VAN DEN KERKHOF c. BELGIQUE
Lorsqu'un Gouvernement excipe du non-épuisement des voies de recours internes, il doit convaincre la Cour que le recours était effectif et disponible tant en théorie qu'en pratique à l'époque des faits, c'est-à-dire qu'il était accessible et susceptible d'offrir au requérant le redressement approprié de ses griefs, et qu'il présentait des perspectives raisonnables de succès (McFarlane c. Irlande [GC], no 31333/06, § 107, 10 septembre 2010, et Vuckovic et autres, précité, § 77).L'article 13 ouvre en ce sens une « option'en la matière (Mifsud c. France [GC], (déc.), no 57220/00, § 17, CEDH 2002-VIII ; voir également Sürmeli c. Allemagne [GC], no 75529/01, § 99, CEDH 2006-VII, et McFarlane c. Irlande [GC], no 31333/06, § 108, 10 septembre 2010).
- EGMR, 11.10.2018 - 55216/08
Italien verurteilt: Warten auf den neuen Namen
- EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 17153/11
VUCKOVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 12.05.2017 - 21980/04
SIMEONOVI c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 55352/12
ADEN AHMED v. MALTA
- EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 40448/06
AYDOGDU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 16744/14
Die Schweiz hat das Folterverbot verletzt
- EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 277/05
S.T.S. c. PAYS-BAS
- EuGH, 09.03.2023 - C-693/20
Intermarché Casino Achats/ Kommission - Rechtsmittel - Wettbewerb - Kartelle - …
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 14.07.2022 - C-682/20
Les Mousquetaires und ITM Entreprises/ Kommission
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 23.09.2020 - C-355/19
Asociatia "Forumul Judecatorilor din România" u.a. - Vorlage zur …
- EGMR, 20.01.2020 - 201/17
MAGYAR KÉTFARKÚ KUTYA PÁRT v. HUNGARY
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 23.09.2020 - C-291/19
SO - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Vertrag über den Beitritt der Republik …
- EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 39712/16
NADIR YILDIRIM AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 11.07.2019 - C-469/18
Belgische Staat - Vorabentscheidungsersuchen - Besteuerung - Recht auf einen …
- EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 41151/20
ALTIUS INSURANCE LTD v. CYPRUS
- EGMR, 18.09.2015 - 42219/07
GHERGHINA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 73798/13
VALADA MATOS DAS NEVES c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 64682/12
VASILESCU c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 12427/22
A.D. v. MALTA
- EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48059/06
DIMITROV AND HAMANOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 10.10.2023 - 31634/18
RIMSEVICS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 15367/14
SHMORGUNOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 36889/18
CAMELIA BOGDAN c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 56065/10
MILOVANOVIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 75717/14
BRUDAN c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 05.05.2020 - 84536/17
GRANER c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 43000/11
HABRAN ET DALEM c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 30779/05
MELNITIS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 28.02.2019 - 4755/16
BEGHAL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 33295/15
BARAHONA GUACHAMIN ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 24340/07
PETRELLA c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 79177/16
MARSHALL AND OTHERS v. MALTA
- EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 28766/06
KIPS DOO AND DREKALOVIC v. MONTENEGRO
- EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 919/15
ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)
- EGMR, 29.09.2015 - 55142/11
ÜNAL AKPINAR INSAAT, SANAYI, TURIZM, MADENCILIK VE TICARET S.A. c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 20287/10
SALIBA AND OTHERS v. MALTA
- EGMR, 23.05.2023 - 49072/21
PANJU c. BELGIQUE (N° 2)
- EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 58812/15
POLYAKH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 15251/07
OPRIS c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 37346/05
FINGER v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 29.09.2020 - 33799/16
ALVAREZ JUAN c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 3356/15
EDWARD ZAMMIT MAEMPEL AND CYNTHIA ZAMMIT MAEMPEL v. MALTA
- EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 22612/15
CHARRON ET MERLE-MONTET c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 55089/13
DORNEANU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 7242/14
BERGHEA ET TURAN c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 12.04.2012 - 60437/08
ERIKSSON v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 01.07.2021 - 66424/09
LESLAW WÓJCIK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 16.06.2020 - 47443/14
BOLJEVIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 56324/13
A.M. c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 56854/13
STORY AND OTHERS v. MALTA
- EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 53168/12
GHIROGA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 19.03.2015 - 7494/11
CORBET ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 17229/04
ZIVALJEVIC v. MONTENEGRO
- EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 73911/16
LARRAÑAGA ARANDO AND OTHERS v. SPAIN
- EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 33781/15
STANKA MIRKOVIC AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO
- EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 77638/12
MANEA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 49037/09
DMITRIJEVS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 45519/06
DURALIYSKI v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 49320/07
STAKIC v. MONTENEGRO
- EGMR, 22.06.2023 - 10794/12
GIULIANO GERMANO v. ITALY
- EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 20193/15
VASSILYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 75529/16
MARTÍNEZ AGIRRE AND OTHERS v. SPAIN
- EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 56367/09
J.R. v. BELGIUM
- EGMR, 29.11.2016 - 27129/14
MIHAILA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 25555/10
IGOR PASCARI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 76884/12
SOPÂRLA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 30.07.2015 - 50104/11
LOISEL c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 74721/12
SANATKAR c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 03.02.2015 - 50858/09
HUTANU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 18238/06
YAGNINA v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 9909/10
S.S. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 01.03.2012 - 24643/08
C. v. IRELAND
- EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 65387/09
SACAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 46575/09
BELLIZZI v. MALTA
- EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 15625/09
ZOPPI c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 06.03.2018 - 56066/10
FRROKU ET MARINAJ c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 07.12.2017 - 32163/09
CUSKO v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 13510/14
SEVERINI v. SAN MARINO
- EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 28022/15
HIERNAUX c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 72936/14
I.P. c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 15920/16
PETRACHE ET TRANCA c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 10.11.2015 - 17283/07
CLOPINA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 17.03.2015 - 26065/06
CEYLAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 61697/11
SIMSEK c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 11579/05
KURGANOVS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 43570/10
MARINKOVIC v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 58258/09
VUKELIC v. MONTENEGRO
- EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 28359/05
MILIC v. MONTENEGRO AND SERBIA
- EGMR, 21.06.2012 - 36124/06
OLSBY v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 26945/06
BOUCKE v. MONTENEGRO
- EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 43838/07
O. v. IRELAND
- EGMR, 08.12.2011 - 37868/06
T.H. v. IRELAND
- EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 43153/08
GOLEBIEWSKA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 08.12.2020 - 76336/16
D.K. c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 31.03.2016 - 50346/07
DIMITAR YANAKIEV v. BULGARIA (No. 2)
- EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 7321/12
GLENDZA v. MONTENEGRO
- EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 43469/09
PIER ET AUTRES c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 14349/13
LOPES v. IRELAND
- EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 8283/07
DREIBLATS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 13210/05
NOVOVIC v. MONTENEGRO
- EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 44855/10
SAID v. MALTA
- EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 61138/08
ENRIGHT v. IRELAND
- EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 25798/08
TIERCE v. SAN MARINO
- EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 41922/06
CESNULEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 50869/08
BIJL v. THE NETHERLANDS (III)
- EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 32775/07
BIJL (II) v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 56347/10
MILER v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 577/11
HET FINANCIEELE DAGBLAD B.v. v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 14336/09
KECOJEVIC v. MONTENEGRO