Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 10.11.2020 - 61836/17 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2020,43015) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
K.O'S. v. IRELAND
Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
O'SULLIVAN v. IRELAND
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 52335/12
PEACOCK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.11.2020 - 61836/17
It normally requires that the complaints intended to be made at international level should have been aired before the appropriate domestic courts, at least in substance, in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see, among many other authorities, Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III and Peacock v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 52335/12, § 46, 5 January 2016). - EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03
Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.11.2020 - 61836/17
The alleged failure to provide complainants such as the applicant access to effective proceedings in which they could obtain compensation for damage 34. The Court recalls that while there is no obligation to have recourse to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 30, 20 July 2004, and Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 46, ECHR 2006-II), 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 that avenue of redress (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 71, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, and Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 70, 17 September 2009)). - EGMR, 28.04.2004 - 56679/00
AZINAS c. CHYPRE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.11.2020 - 61836/17
It normally requires that the complaints intended to be made at international level should have been aired before the appropriate domestic courts, at least in substance, in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see, among many other authorities, Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III and Peacock v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 52335/12, § 46, 5 January 2016).