Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 59129/15   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2016,60077
EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 59129/15 (https://dejure.org/2016,60077)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.10.2016 - 59129/15 (https://dejure.org/2016,60077)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. Januar 2016 - 59129/15 (https://dejure.org/2016,60077)
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




Kontextvorschau:





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (11)  

  • 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, 03.04.2018 - 15495/10

    ARCON AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO

    The Court has already held that, at the time when the application had been lodged, there were no effective remedies in respect of the complaints relating to the length of proceedings: a request for review became effective as of 4 September 2013 (see Vukelic v. Montenegro, no. 58258/09, § 85, 4 June 2013), an action for fair redress (tuzba za pravicno zadovoljenje) became effective as of 18 October 2016 (see Vuceljic v. Montenegro (dec.), no. 59129/15, § 30, 18 October 2016), while a constitutional appeal became effective as of 20 March 2015 (see Sinistaj and Others v. Montenegro, nos. 1451/10 and 2 others, § 123, 24 November 2015, and Vuceljic v. Montenegro (dec.), cited above, § 31).
  • EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 1253/08

    SVORCAN v. MONTENEGRO

    The Court has already held that at the time when the application had been lodged there were no effective remedies in respect of the complaints relating to the length of proceedings: a request for review (kontrolni zahtjev) became effective as of 4 September 2013 (see Vukelic v. Montenegro, no. 58258/09, § 85, 4 June 2013), an action for fair redress (tuzba za pravicno zadovoljenje) became effective as of 18 October 2016 (see Vuceljic v. Montenegro (dec.), no. 59129/15, § 30, 18 October 2016), while a constitutional appeal became effective as of 20 March 2015 (see Sinistaj and Others v. Montenegro, nos. 1451/10 and 2 others, § 123, 24November 2015, and Vuceljic v. Montenegro (dec.), cited above, § 31).
  • EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 32655/11

    JASAVIC v. MONTENEGRO

    The Court notes in this regard that at the time when the present application was lodged a constitutional appeal was not an effective remedy in respect of length of proceedings (see Boucke v. Montenegro, no. 26945/06, § 79, 21 February 2012, Zivaljevic v. Montenegro, no. 17229/04, § 68, 8 March 2011), and that it became effective on 20 March 2015 (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).
  • 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).
  • EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 71998/11

    RAJAK v. MONTENEGRO

    In particular, a request for review (kontrolni zahtjev) became effective as of 4 September 2013 (see Vukelic v. Montenegro, no. 58258/09, § 85, 4 June 2013), an action for fair redress (tuzba za pravicno zadovoljenje) became effective as of 18 October 2016 (see Vuceljic v. Montenegro (dec.), no. 59129/15, § 30, 18 October 2016), while a constitutional appeal became effective as of 20 March 2015 (see Sinistaj and Others v. Montenegro, nos. 1451/10 and 2 others, § 123, 24 November 2015, and Vuceljic, cited above, § 31).
  • EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 17016/16

    DIMITRIJEVIC v. MONTENEGRO

    The Court has already held that a constitutional appeal in Montenegro could in principal be considered an effective domestic remedy as of 20 March 2015 (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) and that it must also be deemed as such with respect to complaints relating to the length of proceedings, so that the earlier case-law in this regard is no longer applicable (see Vuceljic, cited above, § 31).
  • EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 15612/10

    NEDIC v. MONTENEGRO

    In particular, a request for review (kontrolni zahtjev) became effective as of 4 September 2013 (see Vukelic v. Montenegro, no. 58258/09, § 85, 4 June 2013), an action for fair redress (tuzba za pravicno zadovoljenje) became effective as of 18 October 2016 (see Vuceljic v. Montenegro (dec.), no. 59129/15, § 30, 18 October 2016), while a constitutional appeal became effective as of 20 March 2015 (see Sinistaj and Others v. Montenegro, nos. 1451/10 and 2 others, § 123, 24 November 2015, and Vuceljic v. Montenegro (dec.), cited above, § 31).
  • EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 44354/08

    SINEX D.O.O. v. MONTENEGRO

    In particular, a request for review (kontrolni zahtjev) became effective as of 4 September 2013 (see Vukelic v. Montenegro, no. 58258/09, § 85, 4 June 2013), an action for fair redress (tuzba za pravicno zadovoljenje) became effective as of 18 October 2016 (see Vuceljic v. Montenegro (dec.), no. 59129/15, § 30, 18 October 2016), while a constitutional appeal became effective as of 20 March 2015 (see Sinistaj and Others v. Montenegro, nos. 1451/10 and 2 others, § 123, 24 November 2015, and Vuceljic v. Montenegro (dec.), cited above, § 31).
  • EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 44533/10

    VUCINIC v. MONTENEGRO

    The Court has already held that at the time when the application had been lodged there were no effective remedies in respect of the complaints relating to the length of proceedings: a request for review (kontrolni zahtjev) became effective as of 4 September 2013 (see Vukelic v. Montenegro, no. 58258/09, § 85, 4 June 2013), an action for fair redress (tuzba za pravicno zadovoljenje) became effective as of 18 October 2016 (see Vuceljic v. Montenegro (dec.), no. 59129/15, § 30, 18 October 2016), while a constitutional appeal became effective as of 20 March 2015 (see Sinistaj and Others v. Montenegro, nos. 1451/10 and 2 others, § 123, 24 November 2015, and Vuceljic v. Montenegro (dec.), cited above, § 31).
  • EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 75139/10

    VUJOVIC v. MONTENEGRO

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht