Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SOCHACZEWSKI v. POLAND

  Struck out of the list (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2019 - 46091/13

  However, having regard to the facts of the case, especially the fact that (i) the civil proceedings complained of constituted a remedy that had to be exhausted for the purpose of lodging a complaint under Article 3 of the Convention and (ii) by way of the Government's unilateral declaration, the applicant is granted compensation for the violation of his rights under that Article, the Court considers that the main legal questions raised in the present application have been addressed and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaint (see, among other authorities, Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007, and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 165, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 37410/97

  KAMIL UZUN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2019 - 46091/13

  However, having regard to the facts of the case, especially the fact that (i) the civil proceedings complained of constituted a remedy that had to be exhausted for the purpose of lodging a complaint under Article 3 of the Convention and (ii) by way of the Government's unilateral declaration, the applicant is granted compensation for the violation of his rights under that Article, the Court considers that the main legal questions raised in the present application have been addressed and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaint (see, among other authorities, Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007, and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 165, ECHR 2014).

• EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 47370/08

  ÖZBAS v. TURKEY

  The Court therefore does not consider it necessary to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the allegation of a breach of Article 13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, with further references; and Sochaczewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 46091/13, 12 February 2019).
• EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 9302/19

  TOPÇU v. TURKEY

  The Court therefore does not consider it necessary to give a separate ruling on the allegation of a breach of Article 13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, with further references; Sochaczewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 46091/13, 12 February 2019; and Özbas v. Turkey (dec.), no. 47370/08, 28 January 2020).