Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 59129/15 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,60077) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
VUCELJIC v. MONTENEGRO
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84
CARDOT c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 59129/15
Where an applicant has failed to comply with these requirements, his or her application should in principle be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies (see, for example, Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200, and Thiermann and Others v. Norway (dec.), no. 18712/03, 8 March 2007). - EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85
CASTELLS v. SPAIN
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 59129/15
Article 35 § 1 requires that complaints intended to be brought subsequently in Strasbourg should have first been filed with the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance (see, for instance, Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 236, and 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 and, moreover, that any procedural means that might prevent a breach of the Convention should have been used (Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 66). - EGMR, 08.03.2007 - 18712/03
THIERMANN AND OTHERS v. NORWAY
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 59129/15
Where an applicant has failed to comply with these requirements, his or her application should in principle be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies (see, for example, Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200, and Thiermann and Others v. Norway (dec.), no. 18712/03, 8 March 2007).
- EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 28766/06
KIPS DOO AND DREKALOVIC v. MONTENEGRO
Turning to the present case, the Court has already held that a request for review is an effective domestic remedy as of 4 September 2013 and only in respect of applications introduced against Montenegro after that date (see Vukelic v. Montenegro, no. 58258/09, § 85, 4 June 2013); the action for fair redress is an effective domestic remedy as of 18 October 2016 (see Vuceljic v. Montenegro (dec.), no. 59129/15, § 30, 18 October 2016); and a constitutional appeal as of 20 March 2015 (see Sinistaj and Others v. Montenegro, nos. 1451/10 and 2 others, § 123, 24 November 2015). - EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 61976/10
MONTEMLIN SAJO v. MONTENEGRO
The Court observes that it has consistently held that a constitutional appeal should, in principle, be considered an effective domestic remedy, within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of all applications lodged against Montenegro from 20 March 2015 onwards (see Sinistaj and Others v. Montenegro, nos. 1451/10, 7260/10 and 7382/10, § 123, 24 November 2015, and Vuceljic v. Montenegro (dec.), no. 59129/15, § 31, 18 October 2016).