Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 5193/09 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
X AND Y v. CROATIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 8 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Non-pecuniary damage - award ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
X AND Y v. CROATIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 8;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Non-pecuniary damage - award ...
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
X and Y v. Croatia
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 5193/09
- EGMR, 04.04.2018 - 5193/09
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (7)
- EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73
WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 5193/09
The parties did not dispute the applicability of Article 6, under its "civil" head, to the proceedings at issue concerning the first applicant, and the Court does not see any reason to hold otherwise (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, § 73; and Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 64, 27 March 2008).It is in the first place for the national authorities to evaluate the evidence adduced before them in a particular case; the Court's task is to review under the Convention the decisions of those authorities (see, mutatis mutandis, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 40, Series A no. 33; Luberti v. Italy, 23 February 1984, Series A no. 75, § 27; and Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 67, 27 March 2008).
- EGMR, 22.06.1999 - 47033/99
TUMILOVICH v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 5193/09
Remedies the use of which depends on the discretionary powers of public officials and which are, as a consequence, not directly accessible to the applicant cannot be considered as effective remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Tumilovich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47033/99, 2 June 1999; Gurepka v. Ukraine, no. 61406/00, § 60, 6 September 2005; and Tanase v. Moldova [GC], no. 7/08, § 122, ECHR 2010-...). - EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 61406/00
GUREPKA v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 5193/09
Remedies the use of which depends on the discretionary powers of public officials and which are, as a consequence, not directly accessible to the applicant cannot be considered as effective remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Tumilovich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47033/99, 2 June 1999; Gurepka v. Ukraine, no. 61406/00, § 60, 6 September 2005; and Tanase v. Moldova [GC], no. 7/08, § 122, ECHR 2010-...).
- EGMR, 23.02.1984 - 9019/80
LUBERTI v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 5193/09
It is in the first place for the national authorities to evaluate the evidence adduced before them in a particular case; the Court's task is to review under the Convention the decisions of those authorities (see, mutatis mutandis, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 40, Series A no. 33; Luberti v. Italy, 23 February 1984, Series A no. 75, § 27; and Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 67, 27 March 2008). - EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99
Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 5193/09
46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 and 21819/04, § 70, ECHR 2010-...). - EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 3843/02
- EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79
BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 5193/09
In matters concerning its social policy this margin has been recognised as being quite wide (see, mutatis mutandis, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 46, Series A no. 98; and Serife YiÄ?it v. Turkey [GC], no. 3976/05, § 100, ECHR 2010-...).