Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ADZI-SPIRKOSKA AND OTHERS v. \

  Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ADZI-SPIRKOSKA v. \

  [MAC] Inadmissible

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 38914/05

  The purpose of Article 35 § 1, which sets out the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies, is to afford Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 81, ECHR 2000-XI; and Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, § 42, ECHR 2005-X).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 38914/05

  The purpose of Article 35 § 1, which sets out the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies, is to afford Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 81, ECHR 2000-XI; and Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, § 42, ECHR 2005-X).
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  BAUMANN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 38914/05

  This rule is, however, subject to exceptions which might be justified by the specific circumstances of each case (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, 22 May 2001).

 
• EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

  BRUSCO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 38914/05

  The Court has found in respect of a large number of applications against Italy and Croatia raising similar issues that there were special circumstances justifying a departure from the general rule (see Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX, and Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01

  NOGOLICA c. CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 38914/05

  The Court has found in respect of a large number of applications against Italy and Croatia raising similar issues that there were special circumstances justifying a departure from the general rule (see Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX, and Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 38914/05

  This remedy is an appropriate means of redressing a violation that has already occurred (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII, and Kudla, cited above, § 158).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

  VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 38914/05

  However, the Court points out that the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust domestic remedies (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 71, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, § 37, Series A no. 40; and Lazarevska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no.33867/04, 10 March 2009).

• EGMR, 01.02.2024 - 20630/20

  ANTOVSKI AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  38914/05 and 17879/05, 3 November 2011, and Petrovic v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 30721/15, §§ 20-21, 22 June 2017).
• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 7803/20

  KLECHKAROSKA AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  38914/05 and 17879/05, 3 November 2011, and Petrovic v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 30721/15, §§ 20 and 21, 22 June 2017).
• EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 3129/04

  DIMITRIJOSKI v.

  38914/05 and 17879/05, 3 November 2011).
• EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 45482/08

  JOVEVSKI v.

  The provisions relevant to the present case were described in Adzi Spirkoska and others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 38914/05, 3 November 2011.
• EGMR, 26.08.2014 - 35636/04

  MICEVSKI v.

  The provisions relevant to the present case were described in Adzi Spirkoska and others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 38914/05, 3 November 2011.