Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 10044/11, 10048/11, 10050/11, 10051/11, 10052/11, 13180/11, 30787/11, 30793/11, 33413/11 |
Zitiervorschläge
EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 10044/11, 10048/11, 10050/11, 10051/11, 10052/11, 13180/11, 30787/11, 30793/11, 33413/11 (https://dejure.org/2013,30573)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17.09.2013 - 10044/11, 10048/11, 10050/11, 10051/11, 10052/11, 13180/11, 30787/11, 30793/11, 33413/11 (https://dejure.org/2013,30573)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17. September 2013 - 10044/11, 10048/11, 10050/11, 10051/11, 10052/11, 13180/11, 30787/11, 30793/11, 33413/11 (https://dejure.org/2013,30573)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,30573) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
GOLUBOVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
GOLUBOVIC v. SERBIA and 8 other applications
Wird zitiert von ... (4) Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99
BALOGH v. HUNGARY
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 10044/11
To be effective, a remedy must be capable of remedying directly the impugned state of affairs and must offer reasonable prospects of success (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 30, 20 July 2004; and Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 46, ECHR 2006-II). - EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01
NOGOLICA c. CROATIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 10044/11
This rule, however, is subject to exceptions which may be justified by the specific circumstances of each case (see, for example, Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII). - EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84
CARDOT c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 10044/11
The applicants must, however, comply with the applicable rules and procedures of domestic law, failing which their application is likely to fall foul of the condition laid down in Article 35 § 1 (see, for example, Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200; and Akdivar, cited above, § 66).
- EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65
RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 10044/11
The Court has also frequently underlined the need to apply the exhaustion rule with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism (see Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 89, Series A no. 13; and Akdivar, cited above, § 69). - EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85
CASTELLS v. SPAIN
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 10044/11
It is not necessary for the Convention right to be explicitly raised in domestic proceedings provided that the complaint is raised at least in substance (see Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 236; and Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 66, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV). - EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00
MIFSUD contre la FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 10044/11
The purpose of Article 35 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, for example, Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
- OLG Düsseldorf, 28.11.2022 - 26 W 4/21
Kriterien für die Bestimmung des Anteilswerts im Verfahren nach dem SpruchG ; …
Bei Handelsquoten in einer Größenordnung wie der von ihm für die M. festgestellte, gehen - so der Sachverständige zutreffend - die Spruchgerichte regelmäßig von einer nicht hinreichenden Liquidität der Aktie aus (…OLG Stuttgart, Beschl. v. 21.08.2018 - 20 W 1/13, aaO juris Rn. 108;… v. 17.10.2011 - 20 W 7/11, aaO juris Rn. 395, v. 08.07.2011 - 20 W 14/08, AG 2011, 795, juris Rn. 259; LG München I, Beschl. v. 30.05.2018 - 5 HKO 10044/11 Rn. 50). - EGMR, 26.01.2021 - 73313/17
ZLICIC v. SERBIA
This rule, however, is subject to exceptions which may be justified by the specific circumstances of each case (see, for example, Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII, and Golubovic and Others v. Serbia (dec.), no. 10044/11 and 8 others, 17 September 2013). - EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 27471/15
MIRKOVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
The obligation to exhaust domestic remedies incumbent on applicants, in respect of the alleged violation of the right to legal certainty, contains two connected aspects: on the one hand, the applicants must have aired a Convention complaint at national level (see Azinas v. Cyprus, GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III; Vuckovic and Others v. Serbia, cited above, § 75; and Perihan and Mezopotamya Basin Yayin A.S. v. Turkey, no. 21377/03, § 47, 21 January 2014), and on the other they must substantiate their complaint with the proper evidence (see Golubovic and Others v. Serbia (dec.), no. 10044/11 et seq., § 43, 17 September 2013, and, mutatis mutandis, Stefanica and Others v. Romania, no. 38155/02, § 35, 2 November 2010). - EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 75915/12
POPOVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
At the same time, the exhaustion rule normally requires that the complaints intended to be made subsequently at Strasbourg should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 144 and 146, ECHR 2010) and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200, and Golubovic and Others v. Serbia (dec.), no. 10044/11 et seq., 17 September 2013) and, further, that any procedural means that might prevent a breach of the Convention should have been used (see, as the original authority, Akdivar, cited above, § 66, and as a recent authority, Vuckovic, cited above, § 72).