Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAWALHA v. SWEDEN

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 2 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

  VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2004 - 64299/01

  The matter complained of before the Court might be raised expressly through relying on the Convention or its Protocols directly or in substance through raising arguments to the same or like effect before the competent domestic authorities (see, among other authorities, Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 40, §§ 27 and 34, and Cardot v. France, judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200, §§ 34-36, and Riedl-Riedenstein and others v. Germany (dec.), no. 48662/99, 22 January 2002).
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2004 - 64299/01

  The matter complained of before the Court might be raised expressly through relying on the Convention or its Protocols directly or in substance through raising arguments to the same or like effect before the competent domestic authorities (see, among other authorities, Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 40, §§ 27 and 34, and Cardot v. France, judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200, §§ 34-36, and Riedl-Riedenstein and others v. Germany (dec.), no. 48662/99, 22 January 2002).

• EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 41541/05

  NOZADZE v. GEORGIA

  In other words, the applicant failed to bring to the attention of the domestic courts the specific procedural issue that he has raised in the proceedings before the Court (compare, amongst many other authorities, Sawalha v. Sweden (dec.), no. 64299/01, 13 January 2004, and Jasinski v. Poland (dec.), no. 30865/96, 21 January 2003; see also, mutatis mutandis, Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, §§ 38-42, ECHR 2004-III).