Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LEHTINEN v. FINLAND

  Art. 8, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LEHTINEN contre la FINLANDE

  Art. 8, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

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

• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.1999 - 39076/97

  Article 35 also requires that the complaints made before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law and, further, that any procedural means that might prevent a breach of the Convention should have been used (see the Cardot v. France judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200, p. 18, § 34).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.1999 - 39076/97

  He maintained, referring to the Niemietz v. Germany case (Niemetz v. Germany judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B), that the seizure amounted to a violation of his human rights.
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

  VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.1999 - 39076/97

  It has further recognised that the rule of exhaustion is neither absolute nor capable of being applied automatically; in reviewing whether it has been observed it is essential to have regard to the particular circumstances of each individual case (see the Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 40, p. 18, § 35).

 
• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  LEANDER c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.1999 - 39076/97

  Applying those principles in the present case, the Court notes, firstly, that, as a general rule, a petition to the Ombudsman cannot be regarded as an effective remedy as required by Article 35 of the Convention (c.f., mutatis mutandis, the Leander v. Sweden judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, pp. 80-84, §§ 80-84; and No. 11192/84, Marc Montion v. France, Dec. 14.05.1987, D.R. 52, p. 235).
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

  JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.1999 - 39076/97

  The existence of the remedies in question must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see, inter alia, the Vernillo v. France judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, pp. 11-12, § 27, and the Johnston and Others v. Ireland judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 112, p. 22, § 45).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.1999 - 39076/97

  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 the Handyside v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 22, § 48).

• EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5774/10

  MANDIC AND JOVIC v. SLOVENIA

  Likewise, a petition to the Human Rights Ombudsman can only lead to recommendations and has not been considered by the Court to constitute an effective remedy (see, Lehtinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 39076/97, ECHR 1999-VII, and Montion v. France, no. 11192/84, Commission decision of 14 May 1987, Decisions and Reports 52, p. 232).
• EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5903/10

  STRUCL AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

  Likewise, a petition to the Human Rights Ombudsman can only lead to recommendations and has not been considered by the Court to constitute an effective remedy (see, Lehtinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 39076/97, ECHR 1999-VII, and Montion v. France, no. 11192/84, Commission decision of 14 May 1987, Decisions and Reports 52, p. 232).
• EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 69908/01

  JASAR v.

  The Court notes that as a rule the ombudsman is not empowered to address binding decisions to the Government, but only to formulate recommendations (see Lehtinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 39076/97, ECHR 1999-VII).

 
• EGMR, 20.05.2021 - 52415/18

  ASANOVIC v. MONTENEGRO

  Turning to the present case, the Court firstly reiterates that in principle the Ombudsperson cannot be considered as an effective remedy, in particular due to the non-binding nature of the advice given (see Lehtinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 39076/97, ECHR 1999-VII, and Jasar v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 69908/01, 11 April 2006).
• EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 13311/10

  LIU v. RUSSIA

  At the same time, the rule of domestic remedies must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism, given the context of protecting human rights (see Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 89, Series A no. 13, and Lehtinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 39076/97, ECHR 1999-VII).
• EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 4692/04

  JANATUINEN v. FINLAND

  As an example, the Government referred to the case of Lehtinen v. Finland (dec.) (no. 39076/97, ECHR 1999-VII).
• EGMR, 21.10.2004 - 71225/01

  K. c. LETTONIE

  Pour ce qui est de la procédure devant le Bureau national des Droits de l'Homme, la Cour considère qu'une telle procédure, manifestement dépourvue de caractère judiciaire, ne peut pas passer pour un recours effectif et adéquat à épuiser au sens de l'article 35 § 1 de la Convention (voir, mutatis mutandis, Montion c. France, no 11192/84, décision de la Commission du 14 mai 1987, DR 52, p. 227, ainsi que Denizci et autres c. Chypre, nos 25316-25321/94 et 27207/95, § 362, CEDH 2001-V, et Lehtinen c. Finlande (déc.), no 39076/97, CEDH 1999-VII).
• EGMR, 03.01.2008 - 34798/03

  TORNARITIS and C.T. TOBACCO LTD v. CYPRUS

  However, once this burden of proof has been satisfied it falls to the applicant to establish that the remedy advanced by the Government was in fact exhausted or was for some reason inadequate and ineffective in the particular circumstances of the case or that there existed special circumstances absolving him or her from the requirement (see, for example, Lehtinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 39076/97, ECHR 1999-VII).