Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 04.10.2006 - 76642/01   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2006,23791
EGMR, 04.10.2006 - 76642/01 (https://dejure.org/2006,23791)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 04.10.2006 - 76642/01 (https://dejure.org/2006,23791)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 04. Oktober 2006 - 76642/01 (https://dejure.org/2006,23791)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,23791) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (67)Neu Zitiert selbst (18)

  • EGMR, 12.12.2002 - 59021/00

    Massaker von Distomo

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2006 - 76642/01
    However, in the event that the Court considered that Article 6 § 1 was applicable, the British Government invited it to confirm the approach taken in Al-Adsani (cited above), Fogarty v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 37112/97, ECHR 2001-XI), McElhinney v. Ireland ([GC], no. 31253/96, ECHR 2001-XI), and Kalogeropoulou and Others v. Greece and Germany ((dec.), no. 59021/00, ECHR 2002-X), and to hold that a limitation on a right of access to justice could not be regarded as disproportionate if it was necessary in order for the State Party to comply with its international law obligations.
  • EGMR, 12.12.2001 - 52207/99

    V. und B. B., Ž. S., M. S., D. J. und D. S. gegen Belgien, Dänemark, …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2006 - 76642/01
    In reality, it appeared from Al-Adsani (cited above, § 55) and the decision in Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others ((dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, § 57, ECHR 2001-XII) that the Court had not recognised the superiority of traditional international law over the Convention but had, on the contrary, identified a conciliation rule that gave precedence to the Convention's provisions over incompatible provisions of classic international law.
  • EGMR, 17.11.2005 - 59624/00

    K.-E. Z. L. gegen Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2006 - 76642/01
    While it is true that an applicant's undertaking to withdraw from proceedings which he or she has initiated before the Court is capable of justifying the striking out of that application, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, such a waiver, in order to be valid, must be unequivocal (see Zu Leiningen v. Germany (dec.), no. 59624/00, ECHR 2005-XIII).
     
  • EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 25149/03

    Rechtssache V. H. gegen die NIEDERLANDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2006 - 76642/01
    The Court has, for example, ruled that in certain circumstances it may be appropriate to strike an application out of its list of cases under this provision on the basis of a unilateral declaration by the respondent Government even though the applicant wishes the examination of the merits of his case to be continued (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; see also, in particular, Akman v. Turkey (striking out), no. 37453/97, ECHR 2001-VI; Haran v. Turkey, no. 25754/94, 26 March 2002; Meriakri v. Moldova (striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005; and Van Houten v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX).
  • EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 24520/94

    CARAHER contre le ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2006 - 76642/01
    They further submitted that the reasoning followed by the Court in Caraher v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000-I) applied, mutatis mutandis, in the present case: where a relative accepted a sum of compensation in settlement of civil claims and renounced further use of local remedies, he or she would generally no longer be able to claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention within the meaning of Article 34.
  • EGMR, 14.03.2000 - 29697/96

    GLADKOWSKI v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2006 - 76642/01
    It has also struck applications out of its list in application of this provision on the ground that the applicant in question had died in the course of the proceedings and that no heir or close member of their family had expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings (see, for example, Gladkowski v. Poland (striking out), no. 29697/96, 14 March 2000, and Sevgi ErdoÄ?an v. Turkey (striking out), no. 28492/95, 29 April 2003) or that the heir who expressed such an intention had no legitimate interest in that regard (see S.G. v. France (striking out), no. 40669/98, 18 September 2001), or, in the light of a lack of diligence on the part of the applicant (see, for example, Hun v. Turkey (striking out), no. 5142/04, 10 November 2005, and Mürrüvet Küçük v. Turkey (striking out), no. 21784/04, 10 November 2005) or his or her lawyer (see, for example, Falkovych v. Ukraine (striking out), no. 64200/00, 4 October 2005; and Fleury v. France (dec.), no. 2361/03, 6 July 2006), or on the ground that the applicant had failed to appoint a lawyer to represent him pursuant to Rule 36 §§ 2 and 4 (a) of its Rules of Court (see Grimaylo v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 69364/01, 7 February 2006).
  • EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 37453/97

    AKMAN c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2006 - 76642/01
    The Court has, for example, ruled that in certain circumstances it may be appropriate to strike an application out of its list of cases under this provision on the basis of a unilateral declaration by the respondent Government even though the applicant wishes the examination of the merits of his case to be continued (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; see also, in particular, Akman v. Turkey (striking out), no. 37453/97, ECHR 2001-VI; Haran v. Turkey, no. 25754/94, 26 March 2002; Meriakri v. Moldova (striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005; and Van Houten v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX).
  • EGMR, 18.09.2001 - 40669/98

    S.G. c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2006 - 76642/01
    It has also struck applications out of its list in application of this provision on the ground that the applicant in question had died in the course of the proceedings and that no heir or close member of their family had expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings (see, for example, Gladkowski v. Poland (striking out), no. 29697/96, 14 March 2000, and Sevgi ErdoÄ?an v. Turkey (striking out), no. 28492/95, 29 April 2003) or that the heir who expressed such an intention had no legitimate interest in that regard (see S.G. v. France (striking out), no. 40669/98, 18 September 2001), or, in the light of a lack of diligence on the part of the applicant (see, for example, Hun v. Turkey (striking out), no. 5142/04, 10 November 2005, and Mürrüvet Küçük v. Turkey (striking out), no. 21784/04, 10 November 2005) or his or her lawyer (see, for example, Falkovych v. Ukraine (striking out), no. 64200/00, 4 October 2005; and Fleury v. France (dec.), no. 2361/03, 6 July 2006), or on the ground that the applicant had failed to appoint a lawyer to represent him pursuant to Rule 36 §§ 2 and 4 (a) of its Rules of Court (see Grimaylo v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 69364/01, 7 February 2006).
  • EGMR, 26.03.2002 - 25754/94

    HARAN v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2006 - 76642/01
    The Court has, for example, ruled that in certain circumstances it may be appropriate to strike an application out of its list of cases under this provision on the basis of a unilateral declaration by the respondent Government even though the applicant wishes the examination of the merits of his case to be continued (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; see also, in particular, Akman v. Turkey (striking out), no. 37453/97, ECHR 2001-VI; Haran v. Turkey, no. 25754/94, 26 March 2002; Meriakri v. Moldova (striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005; and Van Houten v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX).
  • EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 28492/95

    SEVGI ERDOGAN c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2006 - 76642/01
    It has also struck applications out of its list in application of this provision on the ground that the applicant in question had died in the course of the proceedings and that no heir or close member of their family had expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings (see, for example, Gladkowski v. Poland (striking out), no. 29697/96, 14 March 2000, and Sevgi ErdoÄ?an v. Turkey (striking out), no. 28492/95, 29 April 2003) or that the heir who expressed such an intention had no legitimate interest in that regard (see S.G. v. France (striking out), no. 40669/98, 18 September 2001), or, in the light of a lack of diligence on the part of the applicant (see, for example, Hun v. Turkey (striking out), no. 5142/04, 10 November 2005, and Mürrüvet Küçük v. Turkey (striking out), no. 21784/04, 10 November 2005) or his or her lawyer (see, for example, Falkovych v. Ukraine (striking out), no. 64200/00, 4 October 2005; and Fleury v. France (dec.), no. 2361/03, 6 July 2006), or on the ground that the applicant had failed to appoint a lawyer to represent him pursuant to Rule 36 §§ 2 and 4 (a) of its Rules of Court (see Grimaylo v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 69364/01, 7 February 2006).
  • EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 53487/99

    MERIAKRI v. MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 52332/99

    CALI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 64200/00

    FALKOVYCH v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 5142/04

    HUN c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 21784/04

    MÜRÜVVET KÜÇÜK c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 07.02.2006 - 69364/01

    GRIMAYLO v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 06.07.2006 - 2361/03

    FLEURY c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 58274/00

    LA ROSA ET ALBA c. ITALIE (N° 2)

  • EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

    RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

    For our purposes, two criteria under that Article are of particular importance: first, the requirement that the intention to withdraw a complaint or part of it must be established unequivocally (see Association SOS Attentats and de Boery v. France [GC], (dec.), no. 76642/01, § 30, ECHR 2006-XIV; Cha'are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France [GC], no. 27417/95, § 57, ECHR 2000-VII; and David Saakyan v. Russia, (dec.), no 78386/4, § 20, 15 September 2015); second, the criterion that a waiver will not be considered unequivocal if the applicant gives a clear indication that he or she intends to pursue his or her application (see Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, § 41, 21 October 2002; see also, inter alia, Ohlen v. Denmark (striking out), no. 63214/00, § 25, 24 February 2005, and Association SOS Attentats and de Boery, cited above, § 31).
  • EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 25389/05

    GEBREMEDHIN

    D'une part, la violation alléguée sur ce terrain (relative aux défaillances de la procédure à laquelle ont accès les individus qui, à la frontière, invoquent un risque de traitements prohibés par l'article 3 et demandent l'accès au territoire en vue de déposer une demande d'asile) était « consommée'au moment où le risque de renvoi vers l'Erythrée a été levé (sur l'importance de cet élément, voir, mutatis mutandis, la décision Association SOS Attentats et de Boëry c. France (déc.) [GC], no 76642/01, § 34, CEDH 2006-XIV).
  • EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 21447/03

    PREDESCU c. ROUMANIE

    La Cour observe qu'il ressort des termes de l'article 37 § 1 c) de la Convention qu'elle dispose d'une grande latitude quant à l'identification des motifs susceptibles d'être retenus pour procéder à une radiation sur ce fondement, étant entendu cependant qu'ils doivent se trouver dans les circonstances particulières à chaque cause (Association SOS Attentats et de Boëry c. France (déc.) [GC], no 76642/01, § 37, CEDH 2006-... et la jurisprudence y citée).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht