Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VIDAKOVIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 34 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (28)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.11.1994 - 17621/91

  KEMMACHE v. FRANCE (No. 3)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 16231/07

  The Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by the national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I; and Cornelis v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 994/03, ECHR 2004-V (extracts)), as it is not a court of appeal - or, as is sometimes said, a "fourth instance" - from these courts (see, among many other authorities, Kemmache v. France (no. 3), 24 November 1994, § 44, Series A no. 296-C; and Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX).
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 28743/03

  MELNITCHOUK c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 16231/07

  The Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by the national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I; and Cornelis v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 994/03, ECHR 2004-V (extracts)), as it is not a court of appeal - or, as is sometimes said, a "fourth instance" - from these courts (see, among many other authorities, Kemmache v. France (no. 3), 24 November 1994, § 44, Series A no. 296-C; and Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX).
• EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 67299/01

  DUBJAKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 16231/07

  The applicant's victim status then depends on whether the redress afforded was adequate and sufficient having regard to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention (see Dubjaková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 67299/01, 19 October 2004).
• EGMR, 25.05.2004 - 994/03

  CORNELIS c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 16231/07

  The Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by the national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I; and Cornelis v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 994/03, ECHR 2004-V (extracts)), as it is not a court of appeal - or, as is sometimes said, a "fourth instance" - from these courts (see, among many other authorities, Kemmache v. France (no. 3), 24 November 1994, § 44, Series A no. 296-C; and Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX).
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 45656/99

  CATALDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 16231/07

  Only when these conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude examination of an application (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 71, ECHR 2006-V; and Cataldo v. Italy (dec.), no. 45656/99, 3 June 2004).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 10755/13

  UZUN c. TURQUIE

  S'agissant des requérants qui ont exercé cette voie de recours, la Cour examine bien entendu s'ils ont ou non qualité de victime (Nenad Vidakovic c. Serbie (déc.), no 16231/07, § 34, 24 mai 2011, et Ljiljana Predic-Joksic c. Serbie (déc.), no 19424/07, §§ 23-31, 20 mars 2012).
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34661/07

  MUCIBABIC v. SERBIA

  That being said, a constitutional appeal remains, in principle, a remedy to be exhausted, within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, only in respect of applications introduced as of 7 August 2008 (see Vinčić and Others v. Serbia, nos. 44698/06 et seq., § 51, 1 December 2009), whilst in respect of all applications lodged earlier, such as the application at hand, any redress provided by the Constitutional Court must be assessed through the prism of whether the applicant can still be considered to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 (see Vidaković v. Serbia (dec.), no. 16231/07, 24 May 2011).
• EGMR, 03.06.2025 - 20641/20

  SELIMI v. SERBIA and 16 other applications

  Only when these conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude examination of an application (see, for example, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 71, ECHR 2006-V, and Cataldo v. Italy (dec.), no. 45656/99, 3 June 2004; see also Vidaković v. Serbia (dec.), no. 16231/07, § 26, 24 May 2011).

• EGMR, 25.03.2025 - 40410/07

  KOSTIC v. SERBIA

  That being said, a constitutional appeal remains, in principle, a remedy to be exhausted, within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, only in respect of applications introduced as of 7 August 2008 (see Vinčić and Others v. Serbia, nos. 44698/06 et seq., § 51, 1 December 2009), whilst in respect of all applications lodged earlier, such as the application at hand, any redress provided by the Constitutional Court must be assessed through the prism of whether the applicant can still be considered to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 (see Vidaković v. Serbia (dec.), no. 16231/07, 24 May 2011, Jovanović v. Serbia, no. 32299/08, §§ 34-35, 2 October 2012 and Mučibabić, cited above, §§ 116-120; see, for the relevant principles as regards victim status in the context of unintentional death, albeit in the context of a detainee and medical negligence, Kekelashvili, cited above, §§ 41-55, with further reference therein).
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 15352/11

  NIKOLIC v. SERBIA

  Relying on the case of Vidaković v. Serbia ((dec.), no. 16231/07, §§ 26 and 28, 24 May 2011), the Government suggested that the first condition for the loss of victim status had been met.
• EGMR, 27.05.2025 - 39860/19

  ARB SH.P.K. v. ALBANIA and 4 other applications

  Only where those two conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude examination of an application by the Court (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 71-72, ECHR 2006-V; Cataldo v. Italy (dec.), no. 45656/99, ECHR 2004-VI; and Vidaković v. Serbia (dec.), no. 16231/07, § 26, 24 May 2011).
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 53736/08

  RIÐIC v. SERBIA

  This included complaints about length/non-enforcement in general, in which respect the Constitutional Court had routinely awarded compensation for any non-pecuniary damage suffered (see, among many other decisions, Uz. nos. 391/08, 143/09, 1387/09, 5466/10, 1063/12, 5660/12 of 9 April 2009, 17 March 2010, 17 February 2011, 20 December 2012, 30 May 2012 and 7 February 2013, respectively; see also Vidakovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 16231/07, 24 May 2011).
• EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 73290/13

  EROL c. TURQUIE

  Concernant l'effectivité d'une telle voie de recours instaurée par les autorités nationales, en particulier dans le cas d'une insuffisance du montant de l'indemnité accordée en droit interne, la Cour se réfère aux principes qui se dégagent de ses arrêts et décisions (Cocchiarella c. Italie [GC], no 64886/01, §§ 96 et 97, CEDH 2006-V, Scordino c. Italie (no 1) [GC], no 36813/97, §§ 173-216, CEDH 2006-V, Simaldone c. Italie, no 22644/03, §§ 27-33, 31 mars 2009, et Nenad Vidaković c. Serbie (déc.), no 16231/07, § 31, 24 mai 2011).
• EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 60702/11

  DOMIRA, SPOL. S R.O. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Only where those two conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude examination of an application by the Court (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 71-72, ECHR 2006-V; Cataldo v. Italy (dec.), no. 45656/99, ECHR 2004-VI; and Vidaković v. Serbia (dec.), no. 16231/07, § 26, 24 May 2011).
• EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 63398/13

  POP-ILIC v. SERBIA

  Of course, this includes complaints about length/non-enforcement in general, in which respect the Constitutional Court has routinely awarded compensation for any non-pecuniary damage suffered (see, among many other domestic rulings, Uz. nos. 391/08, 143/09, 1387/09, 5466/10, 1063/12, 5660/12 of 9 April 2009, 17 March 2010, 17 February 2011, 20 December 2012, 30 May 2012 and 7 February 2013, respectively; see also Vidakovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 16231/07, 24 May 2011).
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 41285/19

  STANKOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 54787/16

  KNEZEVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 39611/08

  KOVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 05.04.2016 - 22080/09

  SAVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 16254/08

  MOMCILOVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 11.04.2017 - 58559/12

  BOROVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 63003/10

  PROHASKA PRODANIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 50117/13

  MIJATOVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 16796/15

  CORIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 19222/16

  MILOVANOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 7584/13

  TOHOLJ v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 8362/14

  KOÇ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 21603/07

  MILOSAVLJEVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 16800/11

  ZEREBKOVS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 70661/14

  MARKOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 9333/14

  ERGUN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 19424/07

  PREDIC-JOKSIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 54689/12

  STOKIC v. SERBIA