Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 30211/09 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,52864) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
TASHEVSKI v. BULGARIA
Inadmissible (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
TASHEVSKI v. BULGARIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (7)
- EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 2130/10
Vorliegen einer Menschenrechtsverletzung durch die Feststellung einer erneuten …
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 30211/09
By Article 20 § 2 of Protocol No. 14, that inadmissibility criterion applies to applications - such as the one at hand - not declared admissible before the Protocol's entry into force on 1 June 2010 (see Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010; Borg and Vella v. Malta (dec.), no. 14501/12, § 38, 3 February 2015; and El Kaada v. Germany, no. 2130/10, § 38, 12 November 2015). - EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 25551/05
KOROLEV c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 30211/09
By Article 20 § 2 of Protocol No. 14, that inadmissibility criterion applies to applications - such as the one at hand - not declared admissible before the Protocol's entry into force on 1 June 2010 (see Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010; Borg and Vella v. Malta (dec.), no. 14501/12, § 38, 3 February 2015; and El Kaada v. Germany, no. 2130/10, § 38, 12 November 2015). - EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 23563/07
GAGLIANO GIORGI c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 30211/09
The factors to be considered are, in particular, the nature of the right at issue, the extent to which the alleged breach affected its exercise, and the effects of the alleged breach on the applicant's situation (see, among other authorities, Gagliano Giorgi v. Italy, no. 23563/07, §§ 55-56, ECHR 2012 (extracts), and El Kaada, cited above, §§ 40-41).
- EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 36659/04
IONESCU c. ROUMANIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 30211/09
Respect for human rights does not require the examination of an application if the relevant domestic law has changed and the case is of historical interest only (see Ionescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 36659/04, §§ 38-39, 1 June 2010; Uhl v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 1848/12, §§ 26-27, 25 September 2012; and Kiril Zlatkov Nikolov v. France, nos. - EGMR, 06.04.2006 - 46917/99
STANKIEWICZ c. POLOGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 30211/09
First, the Court has already had the opportunity to address the impossibility for a private party to recoup its costs in civil proceedings pitting it against a public prosecutor's office (see Stankiewicz v. Poland, no. 46917/99, §§ 59-76, ECHR 2006-VI). - EGMR, 10.11.2016 - 70474/11
KIRIL ZLATKOV NIKOLOV c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 30211/09
70474/11 and 68038/12, § 65, 10 November 2016). - EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 1848/12
UHL v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 30211/09
Respect for human rights does not require the examination of an application if the relevant domestic law has changed and the case is of historical interest only (see Ionescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 36659/04, §§ 38-39, 1 June 2010; Uhl v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 1848/12, §§ 26-27, 25 September 2012; and Kiril Zlatkov Nikolov v. France, nos.