Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 01.04.2014 - 16128/08 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2014,22328) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PETRUSEVSKI v. SLOVENIA
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
PETRUSEVSKI v. SLOVENIA
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 6781/09
BRADESKO AND RUTAR MARKETING D.O.O. v. SLOVENIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2014 - 16128/08
The Court notes, at the outset, that it has already been established that a constitutional complaint in minor offences proceedings may be considered effective for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Bradesko and Rutar Marketing d.o.o. v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 6781/09, § 38, 7 May 2013). - EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 57655/08
SUHADOLC v. SLOVENIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2014 - 16128/08
For the relevant domestic law and practice see Suhadolc v. Slovenia ((dec.), no. 57655/08, 17 May 2011). - EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84
CARDOT c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2014 - 16128/08
In this connection the Court reiterates that Article 35 § 1, in addition to requiring that the applicants should avail themselves of domestic remedies capable of providing redress for their complaints, also requires that the complaints, including the relevant arguments, intended to be made subsequently before the Court should have been raised before the appropriate domestic courts, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see, among many authorities, Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200).
- EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 44070/08
MALEC v. SLOVENIA
In this connection the Court reiterates that Article 35 § 1, in addition to requiring that the applicants should avail themselves of domestic remedies capable of providing redress for their complaints, also requires that the complaints, including the relevant arguments, intended to be made subsequently before the Court should have been raised before the appropriate domestic courts, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see, in particular, Petrusevski v. Slovenia ((dec.), no. 16128/08, 1 April 2014).