Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  A.C. v. LITHUANIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  A.C. v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 2, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 59076/08

  The Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court, and that the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed are primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see, among many other authorities, García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I, and Kashlev v. Estonia, no. 22574/08, § 40, 26 April 2016).
• EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 28586/03

  CZARNOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 59076/08

  In such circumstances, the Court considers that, given the relevant domestic law, it must have been clear to the applicant that the remedy which he chose to use did not have any reasonable prospects of success (see, mutatis mutandis, Czarnowski v. Poland, no. 28586/03, § 20, 20 January 2009).
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 22574/08

  KASHLEV v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 59076/08

  The Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court, and that the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed are primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see, among many other authorities, García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I, and Kashlev v. Estonia, no. 22574/08, § 40, 26 April 2016).

• EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 14139/21

  NARBUTAS v. LITHUANIA

  Admissibility The parties' submissions 220. The Government submitted that the applicant had not availed himself of the possibility of lodging a civil claim for damages against any media outlets or investigating authorities, the effectiveness of which had been acknowledged by the Court in A.C. v. Lithuania ((dec.), no. 59076/08, § 50, 4 October 2016).