Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GRISANKOVA et GRISANKOVS contre la LETTONIE

  Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GRISANKOVA AND GRISANKOVS v. LATVIA [Extracts]

  Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (33)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

  JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2003 - 36117/02

  The Court recognises at the outset that Article 34 of the Convention entitles individuals to contend that a law violates their rights by itself, even in the absence of an individual measure of implementation, if they run the risk of being directly affected by it (see, for example, Johnston and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 112, p. 21, § 42; Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, pp. 18-19, § 41; and Norris v. Ireland, judgment of 26 October 1988, Series A no. 142, p. 15, § 31).
• EGMR, 26.10.1988 - 10581/83

  NORRIS c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2003 - 36117/02

  The Court recognises at the outset that Article 34 of the Convention entitles individuals to contend that a law violates their rights by itself, even in the absence of an individual measure of implementation, if they run the risk of being directly affected by it (see, for example, Johnston and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 112, p. 21, § 42; Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, pp. 18-19, § 41; and Norris v. Ireland, judgment of 26 October 1988, Series A no. 142, p. 15, § 31).
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2003 - 36117/02

  The Court recognises at the outset that Article 34 of the Convention entitles individuals to contend that a law violates their rights by itself, even in the absence of an individual measure of implementation, if they run the risk of being directly affected by it (see, for example, Johnston and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 112, p. 21, § 42; Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, pp. 18-19, § 41; and Norris v. Ireland, judgment of 26 October 1988, Series A no. 142, p. 15, § 31).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2003 - 36117/02

  The main aim of this rule is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).

• EGMR, 27.08.2015 - 46470/11

  PARRILLO v. ITALY

  101 and 104; S.B. and Others v. Belgium (dec.), no. 63403/00, 6 April 2004; and Grisankova and Grisankovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 36117/02, ECHR 2003-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 61243/08

  ELBERTE v. LATVIA

  First of all, relying on the Court's decision in Grisankova and Grisankovs v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 36117/02, ECHR-2003 II (extracts)), the Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies.
• EGMR, 25.02.2014 - 17502/07

  AVOTINS c. LETTONIE

  À cet égard, la Cour a déjà jugé qu'en Lettonie, le recours constitutionnel individuel s'analysait en une voie de recours à épuiser lorsque le grief en question portait sur une disposition législative ou règlementaire que le requérant considérait, en tant que telle, comme étant contraire à la Convention (Grisankova et Grisankovs c. Lettonie (déc.), no 36117/02, CEDH 2003-II).

 
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 4605/05

  PETROVA v. LATVIA

  First of all, the Government raised a preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies, relying on the Court's decision in Grisankova and Grisankovs v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 36117/02, ECHR-2003 II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.11.2023 - 21881/20

  COMMUNAUTÉ GENEVOISE D'ACTION SYNDICALE (CGAS) v. SWITZERLAND

  Lorsqu'un requérant met en cause une disposition législative ou réglementaire nationale comme étant contraire, en tant que telle, avec la Convention, la Cour a jugé que le remède préconisé par le droit national pour effectuer un contrôle de compatibilité des lois avec la norme de rang supérieur constitue une voie de recours à épuiser s'il est directement accessible aux justiciables (S.B. et autres c. Belgique ((déc.), no 63403/00, 6 avril 2004 ; a contrario, Tanase, précité, §§ 122 et 123 ; et Parrillo, précité, §§ 101 et 104) et pourvu que la juridiction saisie soit compétente, en théorie comme en pratique, pour annuler ou modifier la disposition législative ou règlementaire considérée contraire à la norme de rang supérieur (Grisankova et Grisankovs c. Lettonie ((déc.), no 36117/02, CEDH 2003-II (extraits) ; et Burden, précité, § 40).
• EGMR, 16.02.2016 - 72850/14

  SOARES DE MELO c. PORTUGAL

  Ainsi, dans un État où ces compétences se limitent à un contrôle de la constitutionnalité et de la compatibilité hiérarchique des normes juridiques, le recours devant la juridiction constitutionnelle n'est à exercer que lorsque le requérant met en cause une disposition législative ou réglementaire comme étant en soi contraire à la Convention (Grisankova et Grisankovs c. Lettonie (déc.), no 36117/02, CEDH 2003-II).
• EGMR, 16.11.2023 - 225/20

  DZIBUTI AND OTHERS v. LATVIA

  As the Court has consistently held, where the source of an alleged breach of a Convention right is a provision of Latvian law, proceedings should, in principle, be brought before the Constitutional Court prior to being brought before the Court (see, for example, Gri?.ankova and Gri?.ankovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 36117/02, ECHR 2003 II (extracts), and Larionovs and Tess v. Latvia (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 30491/17

  SOLSKA AND RYBICKA v. POLAND

  The Government referred to the Court's case-law, which stated that an application for a review of the constitutionality of a legal provision and its compatibility with a provision of superior legal force - where this was the scope of the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction - was required of the applicants if they were challenging a provision of a statute as being in itself contrary to the Convention (Liepajnieks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37586/06, 2 November 2010, and Grisankova et Grisankovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 36117/02, 13 February 2003).
• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 22205/13

  CALOVSKIS v. LATVIA

  An individual constitutional complaint can only be lodged against a legal provision where an individual considers that the provision in question infringes his or her fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution (see Liepajnieks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37586/06, § 73, 2 November 2010, and Grisankova and Grisankovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 36117/02, ECHR 2003-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 45520/04

  LARIONOVS AND TESS v. LATVIA

  The Court has already examined the scope of the Constitutional Court's review in Latvia (see Grisankova and Grisankovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 36117/02, ECHR 2003-II (extracts); Liepajnieks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37586/06, §§ 73-76, 2 November 2010; Savics v. Latvia, no. 17892/03, §§ 113-17, 27 November 2012; Mihailovs v. Latvia, no. 35939/10, §§ 157-58, 22 January 2013; Nagla v. Latvia, no. 73469/10, § 48, 16 July 2013; and Latvijas jauno zemnieku apvieniba v. Latvia (dec.), no. 14610/05, §§ 44-45, 17 December 2013).
• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 73469/10

  NAGLA v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 8430/16

  JURGILEVICA AND POLAKOVS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 17892/03

  SAVICS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 30.11.2006 - 71243/01

  VISTINS ET PEREPJOLKINS c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 21.10.2004 - 76774/01

  POCKAJEVS c. LETTONIE
• EGMR - 45520/04

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 14.09.2023 - 56928/19

  VALIULLINA AND OTHERS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 10.01.2019 - 12879/09

  ECIS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 33637/02

  TERNOVSKIS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 24086/03

  RAUDEVS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 35939/10

  MIHAILOVS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 37586/06

  LIEPAJNIEKS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 61005/00

  KORNAKOVS c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 64846/01

  MOISEJEVS c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 26944/13

  POPOVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 70923/01

  JURJEVS c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 24827/16

  LIEPINS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 3082/06

  TARANEKS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 14610/05

  LATVIJAS JAUNO ZEMNIEKU APVIENTBA v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 21694/06

  KRONKALNS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 76843/01

  NAZARENKO c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 21.10.2004 - 70923/01

  JURJEVS c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 14920/05

  DJUNDIKS v. LATVIA