Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2006,21548
EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00 (https://dejure.org/2006,21548)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08.03.2006 - 59532/00 (https://dejure.org/2006,21548)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08. März 2006 - 59532/00 (https://dejure.org/2006,21548)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,21548) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

Verfahrensgang

Papierfundstellen

  • NJW 2007, 347
  • NVwZ 2007, 795 (Ls.)
 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (171)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

  • EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

    ARTICO c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00
    Admittedly, the reason prompting an objection to admissibility sometimes comes to light after the decision accepting the application: for example, a reversal of domestic case-law may disclose the existence of a hitherto unknown remedy or an applicant may formulate a new complaint whose admissibility the Government have not yet had the opportunity of contesting (see, among other authorities, the Artico v. Italy judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, pp. 13-14, § 27).
  • EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11152/84

    CIULLA v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00
    "44. The Court notes at the outset that it has jurisdiction to take cognisance of preliminary pleas of this kind if and in so far as the respondent State has already raised them before the Commission to the extent that their nature and the circumstances permitted; if that condition is not satisfied, the Government are estopped from raising the matter before the Court (see, among many other authorities, the De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp judgment of 18 June 1971, Series A no. 12, pp. 29-31, §§ 47-55, and the Ciulla v. Italy judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 148, p. 14, § 28).
  • EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92

    DIKME c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00
    The Court reaffirmed the above line of case-law in Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, §§ 44 and 45, ECHR 2000-VIII:.
     
  • EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

    WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00
    Secondly, the Court has already held that it is not open to it to set aside the application of another admissibility criterion, namely the six-month rule, solely because a Government has not made a preliminary objection to that effect (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).
  • EGMR, 28.02.2002 - 59109/00

    JOVANOVIC contre la CROATIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00
    The present case could not be distinguished from Jovanovic v. Croatia ((dec.), no. 59109/00, ECHR 2002-III).
  • EGMR, 26.09.2002 - 16837/02

    OSTOJIC v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00
    As to the applicant's argument that the termination of her tenancy resulted in a continuing situation (see paragraph 58 above), the Court reiterates that the deprivation of an individual's home or property is in principle an instantaneous act and does not produce a continuing situation of "deprivation" in respect of the rights concerned (see, inter alia, Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII, and, mutatis mutandis, Ostojic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 16837/02, ECHR 2002-IX).
  • EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

    YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00
    In conclusion, while it is true that from the ratification date onwards all of the State's acts and omissions must conform to the Convention (see YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 40, Series A no. 319-A), the Convention imposes no specific obligation on the Contracting States to provide redress for wrongs or damage caused prior to that date (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 38, ECHR 2004-IX).
  • EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 33071/96

    MALHOUS c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00
    As to the applicant's argument that the termination of her tenancy resulted in a continuing situation (see paragraph 58 above), the Court reiterates that the deprivation of an individual's home or property is in principle an instantaneous act and does not produce a continuing situation of "deprivation" in respect of the rights concerned (see, inter alia, Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII, and, mutatis mutandis, Ostojic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 16837/02, ECHR 2002-IX).
  • EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

    SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00
    After the momentous decision in Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy ([GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, ECHR 2000-VIII) this purpose gained considerably in its significance.
  • EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 44912/98

    KOPECKÝ v. SLOVAKIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00
    In conclusion, while it is true that from the ratification date onwards all of the State's acts and omissions must conform to the Convention (see YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 40, Series A no. 319-A), the Convention imposes no specific obligation on the Contracting States to provide redress for wrongs or damage caused prior to that date (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 38, ECHR 2004-IX).
  • EGMR, 12.11.2008 - 34503/97

    Demir und Baykara ./. Türkei - Streikrecht für Beamte

    That being said, the Court notes that, even if there had been estoppel, it could not have avoided examining this issue, which goes to its jurisdiction, the extent of which is determined by the Convention itself, in particular by Article 32, and not by the parties' submissions in a particular case (see, mutatis mutandis, Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, §§ 63-69, ECHR 2006-....).
  • EGMR, 07.05.2021 - 4907/18

    XERO FLOR w POLSCE sp. z o. o. - Unabhängigkeit der polnischen Gerichte

    However, since this is a matter which goes to the Court's jurisdiction, the Court may examine it of its own motion (see Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-III; and Mirovni Institut v. Slovenia, no. 32303/13, § 27, 13 March 2018).
  • VGH Hessen, 11.02.2015 - 29 C 1241/12

    Der Kläger zu 1. war bis Ende 1995 Eigentümer des Hausgrundstücks A...straße ... …

    Es besteht danach auch nicht die Möglichkeit, diese Frist nur deshalb nicht anzuwenden, weil eine Regierung auf dieser Grundlage keine prozessuale Einrede vorgebracht hat (…vgl. Urteile vom 20. Januar 2011 - 21980/06 u.a. -, juris Rn. 75 und vom 8. März 2006 - 59532/00 -, NJW 2007, 347).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht