Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MURATOVIC v. SERBIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 26867/02

  GRZINCIC c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 41698/06

  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; and Grzincic v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 84, 3 May 2007).
• EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

  BRUSCO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 41698/06

  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; and Grzincic v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 84, 3 May 2007).
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 41698/06

  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, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99

  Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 41698/06

  46113/99 et al., § 69, ECHR 2010).

• EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 5433/17

  DOMJÁN v. HUNGARY

  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; Hodzic, decision cited above, § 18; and Muratovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 41698/06, § 15, 21 March 2017).
• EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 45204/04

  PAVKOVIC v. SERBIA

  The relevant domestic and international law and practice were outlined in Alisic and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 60642/08, §§ 12-23, 44-46, 53, 56 and 59-69, ECHR 2014, and Muratovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 41698/06, § 4, 21 March 2017).

  The Court has recently established that the Alisic Implementation Act, in principle, met the criteria set out in the pilot judgment and that all savers must now use the remedy introduced by that Act - a request for verification (see Muratovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 41698/06, 21 March 2017).

• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 54927/15

  MENDREI v. HUNGARY

  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, 17.11.2020 - 1318/15

  SCHIFFER AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  The Court reiterates 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 v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 71, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; 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, 30.01.2018 - 77056/14

  SHTOLTS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Among such exceptions are situations where, following a pilot judgment on the merits in which the Court found a systemic violation of the Convention, the respondent State has made a specific remedy available to redress at domestic level grievances of persons in a similar situation (for an application of this principle to the initial Compensation Act introduced in the wake of the Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) pilot judgment, no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009, see Nagovitsyn and Nalgiyev, cited above, § 40; see also, among other authorities, Demopoulos and Others, cited above, §§ 87-88; Balan v. Moldova (dec.), no. 44746/08, §§ 23-25, 24 January 2012; Latak v. Poland (dec.), no. 52070/08, § 79, 12 October 2010; Stella and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 49169/09, § 41, 16 September 2014; and the recent cases of Muratovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 41698/06, 21 March 2017, and Domján v. Hungary (dec.), no. 5433/17, § 35, 14 November 2017).