Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 8406/06 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,1925) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 8406/06
- EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 8406/06
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 25256/05
HVALICA v. SLOVENIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 8406/06
As to the question whether the applicants have exhausted all domestic remedies the Court notes that the complaints intended to be subsequently made to the Court should have been made to the domestic courts at least in substance (see, among many other authorities, Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, § 39, Series A no. 40; Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200; Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 66, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III; Paksas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 34932/04, § 75, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and as a recent example, Hvalica v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 25256/05, 22 May 2012). - EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84
CARDOT c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 8406/06
As to the question whether the applicants have exhausted all domestic remedies the Court notes that the complaints intended to be subsequently made to the Court should have been made to the domestic courts at least in substance (see, among many other authorities, Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, § 39, Series A no. 40; Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200; Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 66, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III; Paksas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 34932/04, § 75, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and as a recent example, Hvalica v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 25256/05, 22 May 2012). - EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76
VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 8406/06
As to the question whether the applicants have exhausted all domestic remedies the Court notes that the complaints intended to be subsequently made to the Court should have been made to the domestic courts at least in substance (see, among many other authorities, Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, § 39, Series A no. 40; Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200; Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 66, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III; Paksas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 34932/04, § 75, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and as a recent example, Hvalica v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 25256/05, 22 May 2012).