Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 52335/12 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,592) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PEACOCK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Inadmissible (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
PEACOCK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (11) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 29426/08
MEROT D.O.O. AND STORITVE TIR D.O.O. v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 52335/12
29426/98 and 29737/08, §§ 35-38, 10 December 2013). - EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 2478/15
NICKLINSON AND LAMB v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 52335/12
2478/15 and 1787/15, § 89, 23 June 2015). - EGMR, 28.04.2004 - 56679/00
AZINAS c. CHYPRE
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 52335/12
It normally requires that the complaints intended to be made at international level should have been aired before the appropriate domestic courts, at least in substance, in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see, among many other authorities, Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III; and Nicklinson and Lamb v. the United Kingdom (dec.), nos.
- EGMR, 07.11.2023 - 63543/09
DURDAJ AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 09.06.2016 - 66602/09
SISMANIDIS ET SITARIDIS c. GRÈCE
Au vu de ce qui précède, ledit grief, pour autant que la deuxième requête est concernée, doit être rejeté pour non-épuisement des voies de recours internes, en application de l'article 35 §§ 1 et 4 de la Convention (Roberts c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 59703/13, 5 janvier 2016 ; Peacock c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 52335/12, 5 janvier 2016). - EGMR, 29.06.2017 - 20086/13
KOSMAS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 18860/19
Beschwerde beim EGMR unzulässig: Bäckerei musste keinen "Gay Cake" backen
The Government, relying on Peacock v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 52335/12, 5 January 2016), argued that it was not sufficient for the applicant to have raised his Convention complaints "in substance"; his Convention rights had to be positively asserted before the domestic courts. - EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 15352/11
NIKOLIC v. SERBIA
Rather, the applicant must actually have complained (expressly or in substance) of it in a manner which leaves no doubt that the same complaint that is subsequently submitted to the Court was indeed raised at the domestic level (see Farzaliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 29620/07, § 55, 28 May 2020, and Peacock v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 52335/12, § 38, 5 January 2016). - EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 51127/18
STEFANOV v. BULGARIA
In the light of the Bulgarian courts" recent tendency, including in proceedings under the 1988 Act, to engage more broadly with arguments based on the Convention by reason of its being directly applicable in domestic law (see paragraph 52 above), it cannot automatically be presumed that in such proceedings they would treat arguments based on Article 10 of the Convention as irrelevant (contrast Kandzhov, cited above, § 49, which predated the domestic judgments cited in paragraph 52 above, and compare with Multigestion v. France (dec.), no. 59341/00, ECHR 2002-V (extracts), and Peacock v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 52335/12, § 37, 5 January 2016). - EGMR, 10.11.2020 - 61836/17
K.O'S. v. IRELAND
It normally requires that the complaints intended to be made at international level should have been aired before the appropriate domestic courts, at least in substance, in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see, among many other authorities, Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III and Peacock v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 52335/12, § 46, 5 January 2016). - EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 24344/08
THOMAS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Consequently, the applicant did not provide the domestic courts with the opportunity which is in principle intended to be afforded to a Contracting State by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, namely the opportunity of addressing, and thereby preventing or putting right, the particular Convention violation alleged against it (see Peacock v. the United Kingdom (dec.) 52335/12, § 40, 5 January 2016 and Goggins and Others, cited above, § 55). - EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 54318/14
J.M.O. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
It normally requires that the complaints intended to be made at international level should have been aired before the appropriate domestic courts, at least in substance, in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see, among many other authorities, Peacock v the United Kingdom, no. 52335/12 (dec.) 5 January 2016; Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III; and Nicklinson and Lamb v. the United Kingdom (dec.), nos. - EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 47190/12
VASILOPOULOS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
Il s'ensuit que les requérants n'ont pas donné aux juridictions grecques l'occasion que l'article 35 de la Convention a pour finalité de ménager en principe aux États contractants, à savoir celle d'examiner, et ainsi de prévenir ou redresser, les violations de la Convention qui sont alléguées contre eux (voir à cet égard Association Les Témoins de Jéhovah c. France (déc.), no 8916/05, 21 septembre 2010, et Peacock c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 52335/12, §§ 32 - 41, 5 janvier 2016). - EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 52962/11
BROUGH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM