Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SPASIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 25551/05

  KOROLEV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2015 - 21477/13

  The Court has previously held that the "significant disadvantage" criterion applies where, notwithstanding a potential violation of a right from a purely legal point of view, the level of severity attained does not warrant consideration by an international court (see Adrian Mihai Ionescu v. Romania (dec), no. 36659/04, 1 June 2010; Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, 1 July 2010; Gaftoniuc v. Romania (dec.), no. 30934/05, 22 February 2011).
• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 36659/04

  IONESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2015 - 21477/13

  The Court has previously held that the "significant disadvantage" criterion applies where, notwithstanding a potential violation of a right from a purely legal point of view, the level of severity attained does not warrant consideration by an international court (see Adrian Mihai Ionescu v. Romania (dec), no. 36659/04, 1 June 2010; Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, 1 July 2010; Gaftoniuc v. Romania (dec.), no. 30934/05, 22 February 2011).
• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 24880/05

  HOLUB c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2015 - 21477/13

  Lastly, as to whether the case was "duly considered by a domestic tribunal", the Court held in the Holub case (see Holub v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 24880/05, 14 December 2010) that the term "case" referred to in Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention is to be distinguished from the terms "application" or "complaint".

 
• EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 2269/06

  R. KACAPOR AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2015 - 21477/13

  2269/06 et al., 15 January 2008.
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 45175/04

  SHEFER v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2015 - 21477/13

  In evaluation of the subjective significance of the proceedings for the applicant, the Court observes that she effectively rejected the enforcement of the judgment rendered in her favour by failing to take over the debtor's seized property, the value of which was estimated at EUR 845. Hence, notwithstanding the applicant's claim to the contrary, her conduct demonstrates apparent absence of significant interest in the outcome of the proceedings (see, by analogy, Shefer v. Russia (dec.), no. 45175/04, 13 March 2012).
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 35835/05

  CRNISANIN AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2015 - 21477/13

  Moreover, the Court observes that a complaint of non-enforcement of a final domestic decision rendered against socially-owned companies, already subject of the Court's well-established case-law (see, among many other authorities, R. Kacapor and Others, cited above, §§ 115-116 and § 120; and Crnisanin and Others v. Serbia, nos. 35835/05 et seq., §§ 123-124 and §§ 133-134, 13 January 2009), does not concern an important question of principle, which might justify examining it any further.
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 38875/03

  BUROV v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2015 - 21477/13

  The level of severity shall be assessed in the light of the financial impact of the matter in dispute and the importance of the case for the applicant (see Burov v. Moldova (dec.), no. 38875/03, § 25, 14 June 2011).
• EGMR, 22.02.2011 - 30934/05

  GAFTONIUC v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2015 - 21477/13

  The Court has previously held that the "significant disadvantage" criterion applies where, notwithstanding a potential violation of a right from a purely legal point of view, the level of severity attained does not warrant consideration by an international court (see Adrian Mihai Ionescu v. Romania (dec), no. 36659/04, 1 June 2010; Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, 1 July 2010; Gaftoniuc v. Romania (dec.), no. 30934/05, 22 February 2011).

• EGMR, 31.08.2023 - 35107/22

  ZIVKOV AKSIN v. SERBIA

  Furthermore, the level of severity shall be assessed in the light of the financial impact of the matter in dispute and the importance of the case for the applicant (see Burov v. Moldova (dec.), no. 38875/03, § 25, 14 June 2011, and Spasic v. Serbia (dec.) [Committee], no. 21477/13, 3 February 2015).