Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 33800/14   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2015,14803
EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 33800/14 (https://dejure.org/2015,14803)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 02.06.2015 - 33800/14 (https://dejure.org/2015,14803)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 02. Juni 2015 - 33800/14 (https://dejure.org/2015,14803)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,14803) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
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 ...Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

  • EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 58688/11

    HARABIN v. SLOVAKIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 33800/14
    For more factual details concerning the background see the Court's judgment of 20 November 2012 in the case of Harabin v. Slovakia (no. 58688/11) and decision of 29 June 2004 in Harabin v. Slovakia (no. 62584/00, ECHR 2004-VI).

    Application no. 58688/11.

    In application no. 58688/11, the applicant mainly asserted a violation of his rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the disciplinary proceeding against him mentioned above.

    Execution of the Court's judgment in application no. 58688/11.

  • EGMR, 25.10.2001 - 44531/98

    RONGONI c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 33800/14
    However, the Committee of Ministers" role in this sphere does not mean that measures taken by a respondent State to remedy a violation found by the Court cannot raise a new issue undecided by the judgment (see Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) [v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 62, ECHR 2009]; Hakkar v. France (dec.), no. 43580/04, 7 April 2009; Haase, cited above; Mehemi [v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 43, ECHR 2003-IV]; Rongoni v. Italy, no. 44531/98, § 13, 25 October 2001; Rando v. Italy, no. 38498/97, § 17, 15 February 2000; Leterme v. France, 29 April 1998, Reports 1998-III; Pailot v. France, 22 April 1998, § 57, Reports 1998-II; and Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 27 November 1992, Series A no. 250) and, as such, form the subject of a new application that may be dealt with by the Court.".

    It therefore finds that the applicant's situation is conceptually different from those in which it has found it justified in the past to examine a continuing violation of a Convention right following adoption of a judgment in which it had previously found a violation of that right with reference to a certain preceding period of time (see, amongst others Ivantoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia, no. 23687/05, §§ 93-96, 15 November 2011 regarding continuing detention; Wasserman v. Russia (no. 2), no. 21071/05, §§ 36-37, 10 April 2008 as to the non-enforcement of a domestic judgment; and Rongoni v. Italy, no. 44531/98, § 13, 25 October 2001, concerning length of proceedings).

  • EGMR, 04.01.2011 - 8559/08

    DOWSETT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (NO. 2)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 33800/14
    It has therefore refused to examine complaints concerning the failure by States to execute its judgments, declaring such complaints inadmissible ratione materiae (see Moldovan and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 8229/04, 15 February 2011; Dowsett v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) (dec.), no. 8559/08, 4 January 2011; Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 5980/07, 6 July 2010; Haase v. Germany, no. 11057/02, ECHR 2004 III; Komanický v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 13677/03, 1 March 2005; Lyons and Others, cited above; Krcmár and Others [v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 69190/01, 30 March 2004]; and [Fischer] v. Austria (dec.), no. 27569/02, ECHR 2003 VI).
  • EGMR, 27.11.1992 - 13441/87

    OLSSON c. SUÈDE (N° 2)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 33800/14
    However, the Committee of Ministers" role in this sphere does not mean that measures taken by a respondent State to remedy a violation found by the Court cannot raise a new issue undecided by the judgment (see Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) [v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 62, ECHR 2009]; Hakkar v. France (dec.), no. 43580/04, 7 April 2009; Haase, cited above; Mehemi [v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 43, ECHR 2003-IV]; Rongoni v. Italy, no. 44531/98, § 13, 25 October 2001; Rando v. Italy, no. 38498/97, § 17, 15 February 2000; Leterme v. France, 29 April 1998, Reports 1998-III; Pailot v. France, 22 April 1998, § 57, Reports 1998-II; and Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 27 November 1992, Series A no. 250) and, as such, form the subject of a new application that may be dealt with by the Court.".
  • EGMR, 11.05.2010 - 29061/08

    STECK-RISCH AND OTHERS v. LIECHTENSTEIN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 33800/14
    Secondly, insofar as it is not so prevented, it must examine whether the domestic proceedings on the applicant's request for reopening attracted the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Steck-Risch and Others v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 29061/08, 11 May 2010) and, if so, whether the requirements of that Article were complied with.
  • EGMR, 15.02.2000 - 38498/97

    RANDO c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 33800/14
    However, the Committee of Ministers" role in this sphere does not mean that measures taken by a respondent State to remedy a violation found by the Court cannot raise a new issue undecided by the judgment (see Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) [v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 62, ECHR 2009]; Hakkar v. France (dec.), no. 43580/04, 7 April 2009; Haase, cited above; Mehemi [v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 43, ECHR 2003-IV]; Rongoni v. Italy, no. 44531/98, § 13, 25 October 2001; Rando v. Italy, no. 38498/97, § 17, 15 February 2000; Leterme v. France, 29 April 1998, Reports 1998-III; Pailot v. France, 22 April 1998, § 57, Reports 1998-II; and Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 27 November 1992, Series A no. 250) and, as such, form the subject of a new application that may be dealt with by the Court.".
  • EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 11057/02

    Entziehung der elterlichen Sorge

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 33800/14
    It has therefore refused to examine complaints concerning the failure by States to execute its judgments, declaring such complaints inadmissible ratione materiae (see Moldovan and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 8229/04, 15 February 2011; Dowsett v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) (dec.), no. 8559/08, 4 January 2011; Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 5980/07, 6 July 2010; Haase v. Germany, no. 11057/02, ECHR 2004 III; Komanický v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 13677/03, 1 March 2005; Lyons and Others, cited above; Krcmár and Others [v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 69190/01, 30 March 2004]; and [Fischer] v. Austria (dec.), no. 27569/02, ECHR 2003 VI).
  • EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 43580/04

    HAKKAR c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 33800/14
    However, the Committee of Ministers" role in this sphere does not mean that measures taken by a respondent State to remedy a violation found by the Court cannot raise a new issue undecided by the judgment (see Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) [v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 62, ECHR 2009]; Hakkar v. France (dec.), no. 43580/04, 7 April 2009; Haase, cited above; Mehemi [v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 43, ECHR 2003-IV]; Rongoni v. Italy, no. 44531/98, § 13, 25 October 2001; Rando v. Italy, no. 38498/97, § 17, 15 February 2000; Leterme v. France, 29 April 1998, Reports 1998-III; Pailot v. France, 22 April 1998, § 57, Reports 1998-II; and Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 27 November 1992, Series A no. 250) and, as such, form the subject of a new application that may be dealt with by the Court.".
  • EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 69190/01

    KRCMAR et AUTRES contre la REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 33800/14
    It has therefore refused to examine complaints concerning the failure by States to execute its judgments, declaring such complaints inadmissible ratione materiae (see Moldovan and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 8229/04, 15 February 2011; Dowsett v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) (dec.), no. 8559/08, 4 January 2011; Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 5980/07, 6 July 2010; Haase v. Germany, no. 11057/02, ECHR 2004 III; Komanický v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 13677/03, 1 March 2005; Lyons and Others, cited above; Krcmár and Others [v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 69190/01, 30 March 2004]; and [Fischer] v. Austria (dec.), no. 27569/02, ECHR 2003 VI).
  • EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 27569/02

    FRANZ FISCHER contre l'AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 33800/14
    It has therefore refused to examine complaints concerning the failure by States to execute its judgments, declaring such complaints inadmissible ratione materiae (see Moldovan and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 8229/04, 15 February 2011; Dowsett v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) (dec.), no. 8559/08, 4 January 2011; Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 5980/07, 6 July 2010; Haase v. Germany, no. 11057/02, ECHR 2004 III; Komanický v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 13677/03, 1 March 2005; Lyons and Others, cited above; Krcmár and Others [v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 69190/01, 30 March 2004]; and [Fischer] v. Austria (dec.), no. 27569/02, ECHR 2003 VI).
  • EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 8229/04

    MOLDOVAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 53470/99

    MEHEMI c. FRANCE (N° 2)

  • EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 13677/03

    KOMANICKY v. SLOVAKIA

  • EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 5980/07

    ÖCALAN c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 32772/02

    Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) ./. Schweiz

  • EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 26290/12

    BURDIASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

    However, even assuming that the Court has jurisdiction in the present case to verify whether or not the respondent State has complied with its obligations under Article 46 of the Convention (compare with Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 35, ECHR 2015; Egmez v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 12214/07, § 50, 18 September 2012; Kudeshkina v. Russia (no. 2) (dec.), no. 28727/11, §§ 74-81, 17 February 2015; Rózsa v. Hungary (dec.), no. 53815/11, § 15, 7 April 2015; Harabin v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 33800/14, § 31, 2 June 2015; Meltex Ltd v. Armenia (dec.), no. 45199/09, §§ 37-41, 21 May 2013; Costica Moldovan and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 8229/04, §§ 125-127, 15 February 2011; Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 5980/07, 6 July 2010; Krcmár and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 69190/01, 30 March 2004, and Lyons and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 15227/03, ECHR 2003-IX), the Court cannot enter into a discussion of whether or not the legislative Amendments of 19 April 2011 have sufficiently remedied the situation exposed in its judgment of 2 February 2010 in the case of Klaus and Yuri Kiladze.
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