Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 04.02.2016 - 24723/05 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,932) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KIRAKOSYAN v. ARMENIA (No. 2)
Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01
MELNIK v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2016 - 24723/05
Once this burden of proof has been satisfied, it falls to the applicant to establish that the remedy advanced by the Government was in fact exhausted, or was for some reason inadequate and ineffective in the particular circumstances of the case, or that special circumstances existed which absolved him or her from this requirement (see Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts) and Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, § 67, 28 March 2006). - EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97
BAYRAM and YILDIRIM v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2016 - 24723/05
The Court further points out that if no remedies are available or if they are judged to be ineffective, the six-month time-limit contained in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in principle runs from the date of the act complained of (see, Bayram and Yildirim v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III). - EGMR, 25.03.1985 - 8734/79
Barthold ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2016 - 24723/05
It recalls that the Court's power to review compliance with domestic law is limited, it being in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply that law (see, among many other authorities, Barthold v. Germany, 25 March 1985, § 48, Series A no. 90). - EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84
SCHENK c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2016 - 24723/05
While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is therefore primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, §§ 45-46, Series A no. 140 and Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, 9 June 1998, § 34, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV).