Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MENDREI v. HUNGARY

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MENDREI v. HUNGARY

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 14 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 5433/17

  DOMJÁN v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 54927/15

  However, the Court points out that the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust domestic remedies (see Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 71; Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; Grzincic v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 84, 3 May 2007; Muratovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 41698/06, § 15, 21 March 2017; and Domján v. Hungary (dec.), no. 5433/17, § 33, 14 November 2017).
• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 54927/15

  At the same time, there is a need to apply the rule with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism, given the context of protecting human rights (see Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 89, Series A no. 13).
• EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 41698/06

  MURATOVIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 54927/15

  However, the Court points out that the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust domestic remedies (see Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 71; Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; Grzincic v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 84, 3 May 2007; Muratovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 41698/06, § 15, 21 March 2017; and Domján v. Hungary (dec.), no. 5433/17, § 33, 14 November 2017).

 
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 65681/13

  VÉKONY v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 54927/15

  In Vékony v. Hungary (no. 65681/13, § 24, 13 January 2015), the Court did not examine the effective nature of the constitutional complaint as such, but held that the non-pursuit of an action in compensation against the lawmaker - as and when underpinned by a successful constitutional complaint - could not be reproached to the applicant.
• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 26867/02

  GRZINCIC c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 54927/15

  However, the Court points out that the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust domestic remedies (see Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 71; Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; Grzincic v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 84, 3 May 2007; Muratovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 41698/06, § 15, 21 March 2017; and Domján v. Hungary (dec.), no. 5433/17, § 33, 14 November 2017).
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 51770/07

  DEMIR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 54927/15

  Indeed, where legal systems provide protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms, it is in principle incumbent on the aggrieved individual to test the extent of that protection and allow the domestic courts to develop those rights by way of interpretation (see Vuckovic and Others, cited above, § 84; for specific applications of this principle, see Köksal v. Turkey (dec.), no. 70478/16, § 28, 6 June 2017; Hasan Uzun v. Turkey (dec.), no. 10755/13, § 69, 30 April 2013; and Sefik Demir v. Turkey (dec.), no. 51770/07, § 32, 16 October 2012, where the Court underlined that when a new legal provision was adopted with the specific aim of creating a remedy capable of redressing the type of complaint brought by the applicant, there was an interest in introducing a case before the domestic courts in order to allow them to apply the provision at issue).
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 42461/13

  KARÁCSONY ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 54927/15

  In Karácsony and Others v. Hungary ([GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, §§ 81-82, ECHR 2016 (extracts)), the Court again expressly refrained from giving a general ruling in the matter while holding, with respect to the specific circumstances of that case, that "a successful outcome of [constitutional complaint] proceedings did not offer the applicants a possibility to request any form of rectification of the disciplinary decisions since there were no regulations in Hungarian law to that effect".
• EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

  BRUSCO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 54927/15

  However, the Court points out that the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust domestic remedies (see Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 71; Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; Grzincic v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 84, 3 May 2007; Muratovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 41698/06, § 15, 21 March 2017; and Domján v. Hungary (dec.), no. 5433/17, § 33, 14 November 2017).
• EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 66925/12

  HÁLÓZATI GYÓGYSZERTÁRAK SZÖVETSÉGE AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 54927/15

  It held in particular, in Hálózati Gyógyszertárak Szövetsége v. Hungary ((dec.), no. 66925/12, 14 May 2013), that the applicant's constitutional complaint introduced in the new scheme could not possibly extend the six-month time-limit for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 because it had been rejected partly as falling outside the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction and partly as concerning matters essentially the same as in previously adjudged cases.
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 54927/15

  States do not have to answer before an international body for their acts before they have had an opportunity to put matters right through their own legal system, and those who wish to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court as concerns complaints against a State are thus obliged to use first the remedies provided by the national legal system (see Vuckovic and Others, cited above, § 70, and Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, § 115, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 10755/13

  UZUN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 10851/13

  KIRÁLY AND DÖMÖTÖR v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 70478/16

  Klagen nach Putschversuch in der Türkei: EGMR verweist Entlassene weiter auf …

• EGMR, 11.06.2019 - 57939/18

  Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) ./. Deutschland

  Der Gerichtshof weist erneut auf seine Rechtsprechung zur Erschöpfung des innerstaatlichen Rechtswegs hin, die in jüngster Zeit in der Rechtssache Mendrei./. Ungarn ((Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 54927/15, Rdnrn. 23 bis 26, 19. Juni 2018, mit weiteren Nachweisen) zusammengefasst wurde.
• EGMR, 31.03.2020 - 55997/14

  DOS SANTOS CALADO ET AUTRES c. PORTUGAL

  Par conséquent, dans toute affaire portée contre le Portugal soulevant une question tirée d'une inconstitutionnalité normative ou d'une interprétation normative, le requérant doit avoir introduit valablement un recours devant le Tribunal constitutionnel pour satisfaire à l'obligation d'épuiser les voies de recours internes posée par l'article 35 § 1 de la Convention (voir à cet égard, Mendrei c. Hongrie (déc.), no 54927/15, § 41, 19 juin 2018).
• EGMR, 10.05.2022 - 33104/15

  AGONSET SH.P.K. v. ALBANIA

  As regards the applicant company's doubts about the prospect of success of any of the remedies mentioned above, the Court has pointed out that the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust them (see, inter alia, Tamm v. Estonia (dec.), no. 15301/04, 2 September 2008, and Mendrei v. Hungary (dec.), no. 54927/15, § 26, 19 June 2018).