Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  T.N.B. AND C.D. v. ROMANIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.01.2012 - 6863/09

  In this respect the Court recalls that subject to monitoring by the Committee of Ministers, the respondent State remains free to choose the means by which it will discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention, provided that such means are compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court's judgment (see Scozzari et Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, CEDH 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 53470/99

  MEHEMI c. FRANCE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.01.2012 - 6863/09

  In particular, the Court has stated that 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-...; Haase, cited above; Hakkar v. France (dec.), no. 43580/04, 7 April 2009; Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 43, ECHR 2003­IV; 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, 06.05.2003 - 27569/02

  FRANZ FISCHER contre l'AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.01.2012 - 6863/09

  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. Romania (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, cited above; and Franz Fischer v. Austria (dec.), no. 27569/02, ECHR 2003-VI).

 
• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 69190/01

  KRCMAR et AUTRES contre la REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.01.2012 - 6863/09

  The Court reiterates that findings of a violation in its judgments are essentially declaratory (see Lyons and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 15227/03, ECHR 2003-IX; Krcmár and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 69190/01, 30 March 2004; and Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 58, Series A no. 31) and that, by Article 46 of the Convention, the High Contracting Parties undertook to abide by the final judgments of the Court in any case to which they were parties, execution being supervised by the Committee of Ministers (see, mutatis mutandis, Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (Article 50), 31 October 1995, § 34, Series A no. 330-B).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 11057/02

  Entziehung der elterlichen Sorge

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.01.2012 - 6863/09

  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. Romania (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, cited above; and Franz Fischer v. Austria (dec.), no. 27569/02, ECHR 2003-VI).
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 13677/03

  KOMANICKY v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.01.2012 - 6863/09

  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. Romania (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, cited above; and Franz Fischer v. Austria (dec.), no. 27569/02, ECHR 2003-VI).
• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 32772/02

  Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.01.2012 - 6863/09

  In particular, the Court has stated that 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-...; Haase, cited above; Hakkar v. France (dec.), no. 43580/04, 7 April 2009; Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 43, ECHR 2003­IV; 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, 07.04.2009 - 43580/04

  HAKKAR c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.01.2012 - 6863/09

  In particular, the Court has stated that 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-...; Haase, cited above; Hakkar v. France (dec.), no. 43580/04, 7 April 2009; Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 43, ECHR 2003­IV; 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, 06.07.2010 - 5980/07

  ÖCALAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.01.2012 - 6863/09

  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. Romania (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, cited above; and Franz Fischer v. Austria (dec.), no. 27569/02, ECHR 2003-VI).
• EGMR, 04.01.2011 - 8559/08

  DOWSETT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (NO. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.01.2012 - 6863/09

  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. Romania (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, cited above; and Franz Fischer v. Austria (dec.), no. 27569/02, ECHR 2003-VI).
• EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 8229/04

  MOLDOVAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 31.01.1995 - 14518/89

  SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE (ARTICLE 50)
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 27.11.1992 - 13441/87

  OLSSON c. SUÈDE (N° 2)
• EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN (ARTICLE 50)