Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 17.06.2021 - 14615/19 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2021,17373) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MATTEI AND OTHERS v. MALTA
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 13+P1-1-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
MATTEI AND OTHERS v. MALTA
Art. 13Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 55389/00
DOBREV v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2021 - 14615/19
The Court's assessment 27. As the Government's objection concerning non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in relation to the period prior to 1987, the Court reiterates that the normal practice of the Convention organs has been, where a case has been communicated to the respondent Government, not to declare the application inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, unless this matter has been raised by the Government in their observations (see, for example, Dobrev v. Bulgaria, no. 55389/00, § 113, 10 August 2006; and Y v. Latvia, no. 61183/08, § 40, 21 October 2014, and the case-law cited therein). - EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 17483/10
MARKUS v. LATVIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2021 - 14615/19
Under Rule 55 of the Rules of Court, any plea of inadmissibility must have been raised by the respondent Contracting Party - in so far as the nature of the objection and the circumstances so allowed - in its written or oral observations on the admissibility of the application (see N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/94, § 44, ECHR 2002-X; Markus v. Latvia, no. 17483/10, § 50, 11 June 2020; and Skudayeva v. Russia, no. 24014/07, § 27, 5 March 2019) and failure to do so will lead the Court to find that the Government are estopped from raising the objection (ibid.). - EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 24014/07
SKUDAYEVA v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2021 - 14615/19
Under Rule 55 of the Rules of Court, any plea of inadmissibility must have been raised by the respondent Contracting Party - in so far as the nature of the objection and the circumstances so allowed - in its written or oral observations on the admissibility of the application (see N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/94, § 44, ECHR 2002-X; Markus v. Latvia, no. 17483/10, § 50, 11 June 2020; and Skudayeva v. Russia, no. 24014/07, § 27, 5 March 2019) and failure to do so will lead the Court to find that the Government are estopped from raising the objection (ibid.). - EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 61183/08
Y v. LATVIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2021 - 14615/19
The Court's assessment 27. As the Government's objection concerning non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in relation to the period prior to 1987, the Court reiterates that the normal practice of the Convention organs has been, where a case has been communicated to the respondent Government, not to declare the application inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, unless this matter has been raised by the Government in their observations (see, for example, Dobrev v. Bulgaria, no. 55389/00, § 113, 10 August 2006; and Y v. Latvia, no. 61183/08, § 40, 21 October 2014, and the case-law cited therein).