Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 28571/06   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2010,62910
EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 28571/06 (https://dejure.org/2010,62910)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20.05.2010 - 28571/06 (https://dejure.org/2010,62910)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20. Mai 2010 - 28571/06 (https://dejure.org/2010,62910)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,62910) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





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

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 28571/06
    In the case of Selmouni v. France ([GC], no. 25803/94, § 74 et cons, ECHR 1999-V), the Court held with regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies:.
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

    FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 28571/06
    The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 23459/94

    HOLZINGER c. AUTRICHE (N° 1)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 28571/06
    In this connection, the Court reiterates that it has held in Holzinger v. Austria (no. 1), no. 23459/94, § 22, ECHR 2001-I that the effectiveness of a remedy may depend on whether it has a significant effect on the length of the proceedings as a whole.
  • EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

    König ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 28571/06
    The period to be taken into consideration started on 16 October 1997, when the Real Property Transactions Commission refused the buyer's request to authorise the real-property transaction, as it was from that moment that a "dispute" arose within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, § 98, Series A no. 27, and Morscher v. Austria, no. 54039/00, § 38, 5 February 2004).
  • EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

    CARDOT c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 28571/06
    Thus the complaint intended to be made subsequently to the Court must first have been made - at least in substance - to the appropriate domestic body, and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see the Cardot v. France judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200, p. 18, § 34).
  • EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

    HENTRICH v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 28571/06
    "74. The Court points out that the purpose of Article 35 is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Convention institutions (see, for example, the Hentrich v. France judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, p. 18, § 33, and the Remli v. France judgment of 23 April 1996, Reports 1996-II, p. 571, § 33).
  • EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

    HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 28571/06
    In this way, it is an important aspect of the principle that the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights (see the Handyside v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 22, § 48, and the Akdivar and Others judgment cited above, p. 1210, § 65).
  • EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

    VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 28571/06
    In addition, according to the "generally recognised principles of international law", there may be special circumstances which absolve the applicant from the obligation to exhaust the domestic remedies at his disposal (see the Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 40, pp. 18-19, §§ 36-40).
  • EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 47195/06

    MÜLLER-HARTBURG v. AUSTRIA

    Such a remedy cannot be considered effective under the principles established by the Court's case-law (see VR-Bank Stuttgart v. Austria, no. 28571/06, § 31, 20 May 2010).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht