Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 55777/08   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2011,55817
EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 55777/08 (https://dejure.org/2011,55817)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01.02.2011 - 55777/08 (https://dejure.org/2011,55817)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01. Februar 2011 - 55777/08 (https://dejure.org/2011,55817)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,55817) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges




Kontextvorschau:





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (6)  

  • EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 31622/07

    DOCHNAL v. POLAND

    Having studied the terms of the Government's unilateral declaration, the Court considers, in the particular circumstances of the applicant's case, that it does not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of the case (see Choumakov v Poland (no. 2), no. 55777/08, § 40, 1 February 2011, and Ruprecht v. Poland, no. 39912/06, § 27, 21 February 2012).
  • EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 22426/11

    PRZEMYK v. POLAND

    Having studied the terms of the Government's unilateral declaration, the Court considers that in the particular circumstances of the applicant's case, the proposed declaration does not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of the case (see Choumakov v Poland (no. 2), no. 55777/08, § 40, 1 February 2011, and Ruprecht v. Poland, no. 39912/06, § 27, 21 February 2012).
  • EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 32501/09

    ZIRAJEWSKI v. POLAND

    Having studied the terms of the Government's unilateral declaration, the Court considers, in the circumstances of the applicant's case, that it does not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of the case (see Choumakov v Poland (no. 2), no. 55777/08, § 40, 1 February 2011, and Ruprecht v. Poland, no. 39912/06, § 27, 21 February 2012).
  • EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 16706/11

    RÓZA?ƒSKI v. POLAND

    Having studied the terms of the Government's unilateral declaration, the Court considers, in the particular circumstances of the applicant's case, that it does not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of the case (see Choumakov v Poland (no. 2), no. 55777/08, § 40, 1 February 2011, and Ruprecht v. Poland, no. 39912/06, § 27, 21 February 2012).
  • EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 51219/09

    RUPRECHT v. POLAND

    Having studied the terms of the Government's unilateral declaration, the Court finds that the Government have failed to provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of the case (see Choumakov v Poland (no. 2), no. 55777/08, § 40, 1 February 2011, and Ruprecht v. Poland, no. 39912/06, § 27, 21 February 2012).
  • EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 63756/09

    THEMELI v. ALBANIA

    Having studied the terms of the Government's unilateral declaration, the Court considers that, in the particular circumstances of the applicant's case, it does not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and its Protocols, does not require it to continue the examination of the case (see, amongst others, Choumakov v Poland (no. 2), no. 55777/08, §§ 37-40, 1 February 2011, and Ruprecht v. Poland, no. 39912/06, §§ 25-27, 21 February 2012).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht