Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZIVKOVIC AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 42670/16

  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, 04.04.2017 - 3461/08

  HODZIC v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 42670/16

  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; Bizjak v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 25516/12, § 42, 8 July 2014; and Hodzic v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 3461/08, § 18, 4 April 2017).
• EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

  BRUSCO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 42670/16

  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; Bizjak v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 25516/12, § 42, 8 July 2014; and Hodzic v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 3461/08, § 18, 4 April 2017).

 
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

  PRESSOS COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 42670/16

  Moreover, there is no settled domestic case-law suggesting that such a procedure had no reasonable prospect of success (see, a contrario, Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, § 27, Series A no. 332, and Kuric and Others (merits), cited above, § 83).
• EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 25516/12

  BIZJAK v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 42670/16

  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; Bizjak v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 25516/12, § 42, 8 July 2014; and Hodzic v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 3461/08, § 18, 4 April 2017).
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 48321/99

  SLIVENKO v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 42670/16

  The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention does not apply to proceedings regulating a person's entry, stay and deportation of aliens, as such proceedings do not involve either the "determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him" within the meaning of 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Slivenko v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 94, ECHR 2002-II (extracts), and Maaouia v. France [GC], no. 39652/98, §§ 36-40, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99

  Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 42670/16

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

• EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 43480/17

  FIZGEJER v. ESTONIA

  The existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness; it falls to the respondent State to establish that those conditions are satisfied (see, among many other authorities, Parrillo v. Italy [GC], no. 46470/11, § 87, ECHR 2015; McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 107, 10 September 2010; Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII; Leandro Da Silva v. Luxembourg, no. 30273/07, §§ 40 and 42, 11 February 2010; Vuckovic and Others cited above, §§ 69-77; and Zivkovic and others v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 42670/16, ECHR 5 September 2017).