Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZELJKOVIC v. SLOVENIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

  BRUSCO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 33805/17

  However, the Court points out that 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 domestic remedies (see Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 71; Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; and Grzincic v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 84, 3 May 2007).
• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 26867/02

  GRZINCIC c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 33805/17

  However, the Court points out that 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 domestic remedies (see Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 71; Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; and Grzincic v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 84, 3 May 2007).
• EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 6781/09

  BRADESKO AND RUTAR MARKETING D.O.O. v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 33805/17

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that as far as applications lodged against Slovenia are concerned, applicants are, according to its case-law, in principle required to exhaust remedies before the domestic courts, and ultimately to lodge a constitutional complaint (see Kuric and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, §§ 296-297, ECHR 2012, and Bradesko and Rutar Marketing d.o.o. v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 6781/09, § 32, 7 May 2013).
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 33805/17

  States do not have to answer before an international body for their acts before they have had an opportunity to put matters right through their own legal system, and those who wish to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court as concerns complaints against a State are thus obliged to use first the remedies provided by the national legal system (see Vuckovic and Others, cited above, § 70, and Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, § 115, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99

  Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 33805/17

  46113/99 and 7 others, § 69, ECHR 2010).

• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 60642/08

  ALISIC ET AUTRES CONTRE LA SERBIE ET LA SLOVÉNIE

  Noting that in its inadmissibility decision in the Zeljkovic case (33805/17, 5 September 2017) the European Court held that the depositors whose deposits were transferred to privatisation accounts and whose requests for repayment were rejected on the basis of Slovenian law, were in principle required to exhaust remedies before the Slovenian courts and ultimately to lodge a constitutional claim;.