Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MARINKOVIC v. SWEDEN

  Art. 6, Art. 6+8, Art. 8, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MARINKOVIC v. SWEDEN

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 43570/10

  In this way, it is an important aspect of the principle that the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights (see, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V, with further references).
• EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95

  KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 43570/10

  The Supreme Court referred in particular to the judgment in Keenan v. the United Kingdom (no. 27229/95, § 130, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06

  McFARLANE v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 43570/10

  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 these conditions are satisfied (see, among many other authorities, Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII, and McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 107, 10 September 2010).

 
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 43570/10

  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 these conditions are satisfied (see, among many other authorities, Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII, and McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 107, 10 September 2010).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 32842/96

  NUUTINEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 43570/10

  On the contrary, the Court finds that the close link between the claims under Articles 6 and 8 as well as the Court's settled case-law concerning the procedural requirement implicit under Article 8 (see, among others, Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, ECHR 2000-VIII; Hoppe v. Germany, no. 28422/95, 5 December 2002; and Strömblad v. Sweden, no. 3684/07, 5 April 2012) gives no reason to believe that the issue will not be examined domestically, if raised before the aforementioned domestic authorities.
• EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

  BRUSCO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 43570/10

  Furthermore, the Court reiterates that the assessment of whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is normally carried out with reference to the date on which the application was lodged with the Court (see, for example, Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX, and Andrei Georgiev v. Bulgaria, no. 61507/00, § 78, 26 July 2007).
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 66365/09

  SAVICKAS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 43570/10

  Consequently, there was an effective remedy available in Sweden when the applicant lodged his application with the Court on 23 June 2010, six months after the Supreme Court's judgment (see Savickas and Others v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 66365/09 et al., § 86, 15 October 2013).
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 61507/00

  ANDREI GEORGIEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 43570/10

  Furthermore, the Court reiterates that the assessment of whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is normally carried out with reference to the date on which the application was lodged with the Court (see, for example, Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX, and Andrei Georgiev v. Bulgaria, no. 61507/00, § 78, 26 July 2007).

• EGMR, 25.09.2014 - 29878/09

  KARIN ANDERSSON AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN

  Finally, with respect to the Government's submission that the applicants could claim compensation for a violation of the Convention before the Swedish courts or the Chancellor of Justice, the Court, in several cases, has observed that domestic case-law has developed since 2005 and has concluded that, following a Supreme Court judgment of 3 December 2009 (NJA 2009 N 70), there is now an accessible and effective remedy of general applicability, capable of affording redress in respect of alleged violations of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Eriksson v. Sweden, cited above, §§ 48-52, and Marinkovic v. Sweden (dec.), no. 43570/10, § 43, 10 December 2013, and - in regard to the domestic case-law developments - the latter decision, §§ 21-31).
• EGMR, 21.11.2023 - 11628/21

  Y AND A v. SWEDEN

  Potential applicants may, as a general rule, be expected to lodge a domestic claim to seek compensation for alleged breaches of the Convention before applying to the Court, either by lodging a complaint with the Chancellor of Justice or suing the State before the ordinary courts (see, for example, Eriksson v. Sweden, no. 60437/08, § 52, 12 April 2012; Ruminski v. Sweden (dec.), no. 10404/10, §§ 37-38, 21 May 2013; and Marinkovic v. Sweden (dec.), no. 43570/10, 10 December 2013).
• EGMR, 21.11.2023 - 11644/21

  M. AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN

  Potential applicants may, as a general rule, be expected to lodge a domestic claim to seek compensation for alleged breaches of the Convention before applying to the Court, either by lodging a complaint with the Chancellor of Justice or suing the State before the ordinary courts (see, for example, Eriksson v. Sweden, no. 60437/08, § 52, 12 April 2012; Ruminski v. Sweden (dec.), no. 10404/10, §§ 37-38, 21 May 2013; and Marinkovic v. Sweden (dec.), no. 43570/10, 10 December 2013).

 
• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 9542/11

  ISAKSSON v. SWEDEN

  Furthermore, a comprehensive summary of the issue of compensation for violations of the Convention in the Swedish legal order can be found in Ruminski v. Sweden ([dec.], no. 10404/10, §§ 14-28, 21 May 2013, Marinkovic v. Sweden ([dec.], no. 43570/10, §§ 18-26, 10 December 2013) and Johansson-Prakt and Salehzade v. Sweden ([dec.], no. 8610/11, §§ 49-60, 16 December 2014).
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 64372/11

  NAZARI v. DENMARK

  However, this rule is subject to exceptions, which may be justified by the particular circumstances of each case (see, for example, Henriksson v. Sweden (dec.), no 7396/10, § 44, 21 October 2014; Marinkovic v. Sweden, (dec.), 43570/10, § 34, 10 December 2013; Andrei Georgiev v. Bulgaria, no. 61507/00, § 77, 26 July 2007; and Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 21304/13

  E.L. v. SWEDEN

  On 9 July 2014 the applicant informed the Court that, after careful consideration, he wished to withdraw the application since, in view of the Government's observations and the Court's recent case-law (see, in particular, Eriksson v. Sweden, no. 60437/08, §§ 39-53, 12 April 2012; Ruminski v. Sweden (dec.), no. 10404/10, 21 May 2013; and Marinkovic v. Sweden (dec.), no. 43570/10, 10 December 2013), he found it likely that his application would be declared inadmissible since he had not lodged a claim for compensation for the alleged violation of the Convention with the Chancellor of Justice or the ordinary courts.