Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LACEN v. SLOVENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 75201/01

  GRUSOVNIK v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 76657/01

  A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in the Grusovnik v. Slovenia decision (no. 75201/01, 9 June 2009).

  Indeed, its interpretation, though not based on the express terms of the 1978 Obligations Act, had been consistently applied and was in accordance with the latter's object and purpose, which was to indemnify claimants for the non-pecuniary damage suffered, as well as for the length of time they had to wait for compensation (see Grusovnik v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 75201/01, § 51, 9 June 2009, and, mutatis mutandis, Melchior v. Germany (dec.), no. 66783/01, ECHR 2006-II).

• EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

  Schießbefehl

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 76657/01

  Moreover, it is primarily for the national administrative and judicial authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see, inter alia, Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97, 44801/98, § 49, ECHR 2001-II, and Houfova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 58177/00, 1 July 2003).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 42527/98

  Enteignung eines Gemäldes in Tschechien auf Grund der Benes-Dekrete - …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 76657/01

  In that connection it should be reiterated that the Convention is intended to guarantee not theoretical or illusory rights, but rights that are practical and effective (see Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 45, ECHR 2001-VIII).

 
• EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 37971/97

  STES COLAS EST AND OTHERS v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 76657/01

  However, the Court will not question the national courts" interpretation of domestic law unless there has been a flagrant failure to observe the provisions in question or arbitrariness in their application (see, inter alia, Laudon v. Germany, no. 14635/03, § 56, 26 April 2007; Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, § 43, ECHR 2002-III; and also mutatis mutandis, Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 114, 28 November 2002).
• EGMR, 28.11.2002 - 58442/00

  LAVENTS c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 76657/01

  However, the Court will not question the national courts" interpretation of domestic law unless there has been a flagrant failure to observe the provisions in question or arbitrariness in their application (see, inter alia, Laudon v. Germany, no. 14635/03, § 56, 26 April 2007; Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, § 43, ECHR 2002-III; and also mutatis mutandis, Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 114, 28 November 2002).
• EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 47169/99

  Überlange Dauer eines Verfassungsbeschwerde-Verfahrens

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 76657/01

  Having in mind its established case-law (see, among many other authorities, Voggenreiter v. Germany, no. 47169/99, ECHR 2004-I, and Loiseau v. France (dec.), no. 46809/99, ECHR 2003-XII), the Court therefore sees no reason to dissent.
• EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 66783/01

  Melchior ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 76657/01

  Indeed, its interpretation, though not based on the express terms of the 1978 Obligations Act, had been consistently applied and was in accordance with the latter's object and purpose, which was to indemnify claimants for the non-pecuniary damage suffered, as well as for the length of time they had to wait for compensation (see Grusovnik v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 75201/01, § 51, 9 June 2009, and, mutatis mutandis, Melchior v. Germany (dec.), no. 66783/01, ECHR 2006-II).
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 14635/03

  Rechtssache L. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 76657/01

  However, the Court will not question the national courts" interpretation of domestic law unless there has been a flagrant failure to observe the provisions in question or arbitrariness in their application (see, inter alia, Laudon v. Germany, no. 14635/03, § 56, 26 April 2007; Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, § 43, ECHR 2002-III; and also mutatis mutandis, Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 114, 28 November 2002).