Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 09.10.2006 - 41195/02 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,71489) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
NIKOLOV v. \
Art. 6, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
Admissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 09.10.2006 - 41195/02
- EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 41195/02
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 22.12.2004 - 68864/01
MERGER AND CROS v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2006 - 41195/02
Article 35 § 1 also requires that the complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law, but not that recourse should be had to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see mutatis mutandis Merger and Cros v. France (dec.), no. 68864/01, 11 March 2004; Aksoy v. Turkey, judgment of 18 December 1996, ECHR 1996-VI, §§ 51-52; Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 16 September 1996, ECHR 1996-IV, §§ 65-67). - EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84
CARDOT c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2006 - 41195/02
Concerning the applicant's complaint that the trial judge was biased, the Government submitted that he had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies in compliance with the rules and time-limits as laid down in the Civil Proceedings Act (see Cardot v. France, judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200, § 34).