Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SKENDERI AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SKENDERI v. SERBIA

  Art. 13, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

  LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 15090/08

  As regards lawfulness, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 requires in the first place the existence of and compliance with adequately accessible and sufficiently precise domestic legal provisions (see, amongst other authorities, Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1986, § 110, Series A no. 102).
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 15090/08

  However, 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 that avenue of redress (see Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 71; Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 70, 17 September 2009; and Vuckovic and Others, cited above, § 106).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 15090/08

  Article 35 § 1 also requires that the complaints intended to be made subsequently in Strasbourg should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance (see, for instance, Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 236; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 144 and 146, ECHR 2010; and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 37, ECHR 1999-I) and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see Akdivar and Others, § 66, and Vuckovic and Others, § 105, both cited above).

 
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 15090/08

  Article 35 § 1 also requires that the complaints intended to be made subsequently in Strasbourg should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance (see, for instance, Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 236; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 144 and 146, ECHR 2010; and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 37, ECHR 1999-I) and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see Akdivar and Others, § 66, and Vuckovic and Others, § 105, both cited above).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 15090/08

  As regards Article 13 of the Convention, this provision requires a remedy in domestic law only where an individual has an "arguable claim" that one of his or her rights or freedoms set forth in the Convention or one of the Protocols thereto has been violated (see, for example, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131).
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 45656/99

  CATALDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 15090/08

  The Court further notes that an applicant's status as a "victim" within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention depends on whether the domestic authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the alleged infringement of the Convention or of a Protocol thereto and, if necessary, provided appropriate redress in this respect (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 71, ECHR 2006-V; Cataldo v. Italy (dec.), no. 45656/99, 3 June 2004; and Pop-Ilic and Others v. Serbia, no. 63398/13 and others, § 39, 14 October 2014).
• EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 63398/13

  POP-ILIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 15090/08

  The Court further notes that an applicant's status as a "victim" within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention depends on whether the domestic authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the alleged infringement of the Convention or of a Protocol thereto and, if necessary, provided appropriate redress in this respect (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 71, ECHR 2006-V; Cataldo v. Italy (dec.), no. 45656/99, 3 June 2004; and Pop-Ilic and Others v. Serbia, no. 63398/13 and others, § 39, 14 October 2014).

• EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 13402/19

  NAGÓRNY v. POLAND

  In this respect, given that (i) the applicant's claims had unequivocally become time-barred before he lodged his reimbursement requests and that (ii) the existence of a statutory limitation period per se is not incompatible with the Convention or the Protocols thereto (see Skenderi and Others v. Serbia (dec.), no. 15090/08, § 97, 4 July 2017, with further references), there is no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.