Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NIKOLIC v. SERBIA

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  NIKOLIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 26.04.2005 - 35242/04

  M.A. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 15352/11

  The Court has generally considered this to be dependent on all the circumstances of the case, with particular regard to the nature of the right alleged to have been breached (see Gäfgen, cited above, § 116), the reasons given for the decision (see M.A. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 35242/04, ECHR 2005-VIII, and contrast Jensen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X) and the persistence of the unfavourable consequences for the person concerned after that decision (see Freimanis and Lidums v. Latvia, nos. 73443/01 and 74860/01, § 68, 9 February 2006).
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 45656/99

  CATALDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 15352/11

  Only when these conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude examination of an application (see Cocchiarella, cited above, § 71, and Cataldo v. Italy (dec.), no. 45656/99, 3 June 2004).
• EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 34368/02

  NARDONE c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 15352/11

  According to the Court's settled case-law, a decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him or her of his or her status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and subsequently afforded appropriate and sufficient redress for the breach of the Convention (see, for the main principles, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-213, ECHR 2006-V, and Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; see also, among other authorities, Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003; and Nardone v. Italy (dec.), no. 34368/02, 25 November 2004).

 
• EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 15352/11

  The Court has previously held that the authorities" positive obligations - in some cases under Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention and in other instances under Article 8 taken alone or in combination with Article 3 - may include a duty to maintain and apply in practice an adequate legal framework affording protection against acts of violence by private individuals (see, inter alia, Söderman v. Sweden [GC], no. 5786/08, § 80, ECHR 2013; Bevacqua and S. v. Bulgaria, no. 71127/01, § 65, 12 June 2008; Sandra Jankovic, cited above, § 45; A v. Croatia, no. 55164/08, § 60, 14 October 2010; orÄ‘evic v. Croatia, no. 41526/10, §§ 141-43, ECHR 2012; Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 36, Series A no. 247-C; D.P. and J.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 38719/97, § 118, 10 October 2002).
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 15352/11

  An applicant's failure to make use of an available domestic remedy or to make proper use of it, that is to say by bringing a complaint at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law, will result in an application being declared inadmissible before the Court (see, for example, Vuckovic, cited above, § 72; see also, among other authorities, Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200, and Elçi and Others v. Turkey, nos. 23145/93 and 25091/94, §§ 604 and 605, 13 November 2003).
• EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 8916/05

  ASSOCIATION LES TÉMOINS DE JÉHOVAH CONTRE LA FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 15352/11

  This means that if the applicant has not relied on the provisions of the Convention, he or she must have raised arguments to the same or like effect on the basis of domestic law, in order to have given the national courts the opportunity to redress the alleged breach in the first place (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 142, 144 and 146, ECHR 2010; Radomilja and Others, cited above, § 117; Karapanagiotou and Others v. Greece, no. 1571/08, § 29, 28 October 2010; Maric v. Croatia, no. 50132/12, § 53, 12 June 2014; Portu Juanenea and Sarasola Yarzabal v. Spain, no. 1653/13, §§ 62-63, 13 February 2018; and, in relation to a complaint that was not raised, even implicitly, at the final level of jurisdiction, Association Les Témoins de Jéhovah v. France (dec.), no. 8916/05, 21 September 2010; and Nicklinson and Lamb v. the United Kingdom (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 2478/15

  NICKLINSON AND LAMB v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 15352/11

  2478/15 and 1787/15, §§ 89-94, 23 June 2015).
• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 15352/11

  The Court has, however, frequently emphasised 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 and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 69, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV).
• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 52335/12

  PEACOCK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 15352/11

  Rather, the applicant must actually have complained (expressly or in substance) of it in a manner which leaves no doubt that the same complaint that is subsequently submitted to the Court was indeed raised at the domestic level (see Farzaliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 29620/07, § 55, 28 May 2020, and Peacock v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 52335/12, § 38, 5 January 2016).
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 15352/11

  As regards the Government's objection that the applicant failed to raise her complaints under the relevant Articles with the Constitutional Court and the Court, it is not necessary for the Convention right, and particularly its specific legal grounds, to be explicitly raised in domestic proceedings provided that the complaint is raised "at least in substance" (see, mutatis mutandis, Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 236; Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 37, ECHR 1999-I; Vuckovic and Others, cited above, §§ 72, 79 and 81-82; and Platini v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 526/18, § 51, 11 February 2020).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 1653/13

  Spanien verurteilt: ETA-Terroristen unmenschlich behandelt
• EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 29620/07

  FARZALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 526/18

  PLATINI c. SUISSE