Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BOUCKE v. MONTENEGRO

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Boucke v. Montenegro

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 26945/06
• EGMR, 29.06.2016 - 26945/06

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 26945/06

  However, the only remedies which the Convention requires to be exhausted are those which relate to the breaches alleged and at the same time are available and sufficient (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 75, ECHR 1999-V; and McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 107, 10 September 2010).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 26945/06

  In particular, a remedy of this sort shall be "effective" if it can be used either to expedite a decision by the courts dealing with the case or to provide the litigant with adequate redress for delays which have already occurred (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 157-159, ECHR 2000-XI; Mifsud v. France (dec.), [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII; and Sürmeli, cited above, § 99).
• EGMR, 07.06.2005 - 71186/01

  FUKLEV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 26945/06

  The State has an obligation to organise a system of enforcement of judgments that is effective both in law and in practice (see Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 71186/01, § 84, 7 June 2005).

 
• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

  BLECIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 26945/06

  In the Court's view, although the Montenegrin Government have not raised an objection as to the Court's competence ratione personae in this respect, the first applicant's victim status nevertheless calls for its consideration (see, mutatis mutandis, Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-III, and Bijelic v. Montenegro and Serbia, no. 11890/05, § 71, 28 April 2009).
• EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06

  McFARLANE v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 26945/06

  However, the only remedies which the Convention requires to be exhausted are those which relate to the breaches alleged and at the same time are available and sufficient (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 75, ECHR 1999-V; and McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 107, 10 September 2010).
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  BAUMANN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 26945/06

  The Court reiterates that the effectiveness of a particular remedy is normally assessed with reference to the date on which the application was lodged (see, for example, Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001-V (extracts)), this rule, however, being subject to exceptions which may be justified by the specific circumstances of each case (see Nogolica, cited above).