Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 36659/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2010,44351
EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 36659/04 (https://dejure.org/2010,44351)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01.06.2010 - 36659/04 (https://dejure.org/2010,44351)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01. Juni 2010 - 36659/04 (https://dejure.org/2010,44351)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,44351) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



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

Wird zitiert von ... (51)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

  • EGMR, 29.06.2007 - 15809/02

    Recht auf ein faires Verfahren und Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Kriterien für eine …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 36659/04
    Even though the concept of "significant disadvantage" has not been interpreted to date, it has been referred to in dissenting opinions appended to the judgments in Debono v. Malta (no. 34539/02, 7 February 2006), Miholapa v. Latvia (no. 61655/00, 31 May 2007), O'Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02, ECHR 2007-VIII) and Micallef v. Malta ([GC], no. 17056/06, ECHR 2009-...).
  • EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

    BLECIC v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 36659/04
    However, having regard to the entry into force of Protocol No. 14, the Court finds it necessary to examine of its own motion whether in the present case it should apply the new inadmissibility criterion provided for in Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention as amended (see, mutatis mutandis, among the many cases where the Court has examined compliance with admissibility conditions of its own motion, Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I; Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 63, ECHR 2006-III; and Sandru and Others v. Romania, no. 22465/03, §§ 50 et seq., 8 December 2009).
  • EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

    WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 36659/04
    However, having regard to the entry into force of Protocol No. 14, the Court finds it necessary to examine of its own motion whether in the present case it should apply the new inadmissibility criterion provided for in Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention as amended (see, mutatis mutandis, among the many cases where the Court has examined compliance with admissibility conditions of its own motion, Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I; Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 63, ECHR 2006-III; and Sandru and Others v. Romania, no. 22465/03, §§ 50 et seq., 8 December 2009).
  • EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 46129/99

    ZVOLSKÝ AND ZVOLSKÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 36659/04
    In those circumstances, since the issue before the Court is of historical interest only and as the Court has already had a number of opportunities to rule on the application of procedural rules by domestic courts (see, for example, Beles and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 47273/99, § 69, ECHR 2002-IX; Zvolský and Zvolská v. the Czech Republic, no. 46129/99, § 55, ECHR 2002-IX; L'Erablière A.S.B.L. v. Belgium, no. 49230/07, § 38, ECHR 2009-...; and Sâmbata Bihor Greco-Catholic Parish v. Romania, no. 48107/99, § 63, 12 January 2010), the Court finds that respect for human rights does not require it to continue the examination of this complaint.
  • EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 2130/10

    Vorliegen einer Menschenrechtsverletzung durch die Feststellung einer erneuten …

    Hauptelement des in Artikel 35 Abs. 3 Buchstabe b der Konvention niedergelegten Kriteriums ist die Frage, ob dem Beschwerdeführer ein erheblicher Nachteil entstanden ist (siehe lonescu ./. Rumänien (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 36659/04, 1. Juni 2010; Korolev ./. Russland (Entsch.), Individualbescherde Nr. 25551/05, ECHR 2010; und Shefer ./. Russland (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 45175/04, Rdnr. 17, 13.
  • EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 76136/12

    RAMADAN v. MALTA

    Thus, the absence of any such disadvantage can be based on criteria such as the financial impact of the matter in dispute or the importance of the case for the applicant (see Adrian Mihai Ionescu v. Romania (dec.) no. 36659/04, § 34, 1 June 2010; Rinck v. France (dec.) no. 18774/09, 19 October 2010; and Kiousi v. Greece (dec.) no. 52036/09, 20 September 2011).
  • EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 28005/12

    M.N. AND OTHERS v. SAN MARINO

    Thus, the absence of any such disadvantage can be based on criteria such as the financial impact of the matter in dispute or the importance of the case for the applicant (see Adrian Mihai Ionescu v. Romania (dec.) no. 36659/04, § 34, 1 June 2010, Rinck v. France (dec.) no. 18774/09, 19 October 2010; and Kiousi v. Greece (dec.) no. 52036/09, 20 September 2011).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht