Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 17314/03 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,69836) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
CAREVIC v. SLOVENIA
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 17314/03
In this connection the Court reiterates that the purpose of the exhaustion rule is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to it (see, among many other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V). - EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00
MIFSUD contre la FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 17314/03
The same is necessarily true of the concept of "effective" remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, ECHR 2002-VIII). - EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 25149/03
Rechtssache V. H. gegen die NIEDERLANDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 17314/03
Since the applicant disagreed with the amount offered in monetary compensation and the amount offered in reimbursement of legal costs, the Government, relying on Van Houten v. the Netherlands ((striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX), requested the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. - EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 53487/99
MERIAKRI v. MOLDOVA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 17314/03
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; Meriakri v. Moldova (striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005; Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden (striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006; and Van Houten, cited above).
- EGMR, 27.09.2012 - 35016/05
PERUS v. SLOVENIA
However, the 2006 Act, on which the applicant also relied in his claim, provided for a special compensatory remedy which was found in Korenjak v. Slovenia ((dec.), no. 463/03, 15 May 2007) and Carevic v. Slovenia ((dec.), no. 17314/03, 3 June 2008) to constitute an appropriate means of redressing a violation of the right to have one's case examined within a reasonable time.