Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 19.02.1998 - 25894/94, 145/1996/764/965 |
Zitiervorschläge
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19. Februar 1998 - 25894/94, 145/1996/764/965 (https://dejure.org/1998,24251)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1998,24251) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BAHADDAR c. PAYS-BAS
Art. 3, Art. 26, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
Exception préliminaire retenue (non-épuisement des voies de recours internes) (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BAHADDAR v. THE NETHERLANDS
Art. 3, Art. 26, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
Preliminary objection allowed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) (englisch) - juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 22.05.1995 - 25894/94
- EKMR, 13.09.1996 - 25894/94
- EGMR, 19.02.1998 - 25894/94, 145/1996/764/965
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84
CARDOT c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.1998 - 25894/94
The reasons that I have been stating in my dissenting opinions ever since the cases of Cardot v. France (judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200, p. 23) and Oberschlick v. Austria (judgment of 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, p. 36) concerning the Commission's role in the admissibility issue, apply even more in the present case, because Mr Bahaddar, relying on Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 35 of the judgment), bases his application on the ground that "the decision of the Netherlands authorities to expel him to Bangladesh would, if put into effect, expose him to a serious risk of being killed or ill-treated". - EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10964/84
BROZICEK v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.1998 - 25894/94
That requires some explanation since I have always agreed with those members of the Court who were of the opinion that, in the supervisory system established under the Convention and according to its "procedural economy", the Court has no jurisdiction to examine preliminary objections as to admissibility which have been raised before the Commission and rejected by it (see, in particular, Judge Martens in his separate opinion in the case of Brozicek v. Italy, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 167, pp. 23-28). - EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85
Oberschlick ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.1998 - 25894/94
The reasons that I have been stating in my dissenting opinions ever since the cases of Cardot v. France (judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200, p. 23) and Oberschlick v. Austria (judgment of 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, p. 36) concerning the Commission's role in the admissibility issue, apply even more in the present case, because Mr Bahaddar, relying on Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 35 of the judgment), bases his application on the ground that "the decision of the Netherlands authorities to expel him to Bangladesh would, if put into effect, expose him to a serious risk of being killed or ill-treated". - EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13343/87
B. c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.1998 - 25894/94
However, the position which the Court adopted on the issue in its judgment of 18 June 1971 in the case of De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium (Series A no. 12) has been well established and consistently maintained in the Court's case-law, albeit with substantial dissent on one ground or another (see, for example, the concurring opinion of Judge Russo, the joint dissenting opinion of Judges Bernhardt, Pekkanen, Morenilla and Baka, and the separate opinion of Judge Martens in the case of B. v. France, judgment of 25 March 1992, Series A no. 232-C).