Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 20.10.2010 - 31827/02 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,60888) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
LADUNA v. SLOVAKIA
Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 6, Art. 8, Art. 11, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 34, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 MRK
Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 20.10.2010 - 31827/02
- EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 31827/02
- EGMR, 12.11.2014 - 31827/02
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 69146/01
BABYLONOVA v. SLOVAKIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2010 - 31827/02
In view of the above and considering that the Constitutional Court has held on a number of occasions that an examination of an individual human rights complaint cannot entail a review of the constitutionality of legislation, it concludes that, in respect of the present complaints, the applicant was not required to lodge a complaint under Article 127 of the Slovak Constitution, as suggested by the Government (see Urbárska Obec Trencianske Biskupice v. Slovakia, no. 74258/01, §§ 85-89, ECHR 2007-XIII (extracts), and Babylonová v. Slovakia, no. 69146/01, § 44, ECHR 2006-VIII). - EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 57984/00
ANDRASIK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 77936/01
SAVKA v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2010 - 31827/02
According to the Court's case-law, Article 13 applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131).