Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 10404/10 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,11542) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
RUMINSKI v. SWEDEN
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
RUMINSKI v. SWEDEN
Wird zitiert von ... (6) Neu Zitiert selbst (15)
- EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01
BRUSCO v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 10404/10
Having said that, the assessment of whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is normally carried out with reference to the date on which the application was lodged with the Court (see, for example, Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX, and Andrei Georgiev v. Bulgaria, no. 61507/00, § 78, 26 July 2007). - EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 10404/10
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, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V, with further references). - EGMR - 14163/04
[ENG]
- EGMR - 13466/03
[ENG]
- EGMR - 21819/04
[ENG]
- EGMR - 10200/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95
KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 10404/10
The Supreme Court referred in particular to the judgment in Keenan v. the United Kingdom (no. 27229/95, § 130, ECHR 2001-III). - EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 27451/09
NAGOVITSYN AND NALGIYEV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 10404/10
27451/09 and 60650/09, §§ 29-30, 23 September 2010, concerning compensation for failure to execute domestic judgments; and Latak v. Poland (dec.), no. 52070/08, § 81, 12 October 2010, concerning compensation for prison overcrowding). - EGMR - 19993/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 16864/02
ZENON MICHALAK v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 10404/10
Furthermore, the Court notes 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, Giacometti and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 34939/97, ECHR 2001-XII, and Michalak v. Poland, no. 16864/02, § 35, 18 September 2007). - EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99
Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere
- EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 52070/08
LATAK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 3843/02
- EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00
MIFSUD contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 61507/00
ANDREI GEORGIEV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 21.11.2023 - 11628/21
Y AND A v. SWEDEN
Potential applicants may, as a general rule, be expected to lodge a domestic claim to seek compensation for alleged breaches of the Convention before applying to the Court, either by lodging a complaint with the Chancellor of Justice or suing the State before the ordinary courts (see, for example, Eriksson v. Sweden, no. 60437/08, § 52, 12 April 2012; Ruminski v. Sweden (dec.), no. 10404/10, §§ 37-38, 21 May 2013; and Marinkovic v. Sweden (dec.), no. 43570/10, 10 December 2013). - EGMR, 21.11.2023 - 11644/21
M. AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN
Potential applicants may, as a general rule, be expected to lodge a domestic claim to seek compensation for alleged breaches of the Convention before applying to the Court, either by lodging a complaint with the Chancellor of Justice or suing the State before the ordinary courts (see, for example, Eriksson v. Sweden, no. 60437/08, § 52, 12 April 2012; Ruminski v. Sweden (dec.), no. 10404/10, §§ 37-38, 21 May 2013; and Marinkovic v. Sweden (dec.), no. 43570/10, 10 December 2013). - EGMR, 10.05.2022 - 21238/18
BARSEGHYAN v. SWEDEN
On the basis of that case-law from the Supreme Court, the Court had already confirmed that potential applicants in Sweden could, as a general rule, be expected to lodge a domestic claim to seek compensation for alleged breaches before applying to the Court (see Ruminski v. Sweden (dec.), no. 10404/10, 21 May 2013).
- EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 9542/11
ISAKSSON v. SWEDEN
Furthermore, a comprehensive summary of the issue of compensation for violations of the Convention in the Swedish legal order can be found in Ruminski v. Sweden ([dec.], no. 10404/10, §§ 14-28, 21 May 2013, Marinkovic v. Sweden ([dec.], no. 43570/10, §§ 18-26, 10 December 2013) and Johansson-Prakt and Salehzade v. Sweden ([dec.], no. 8610/11, §§ 49-60, 16 December 2014). - EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 16753/11
DRAUPNER UNIVERSAL AB AND JURIK v. SWEDEN
Noting that the Court had taken the position in the case of Ruminski v. Sweden ((dec.), no. 10404/10, § 44, 21 May 2013) that, following a judgment by the Swedish Supreme Court of 3 December 2009, the existence of a domestic remedy for claims for compensation relating to alleged violations of the Convention must be considered sufficiently clear, he admitted that this remedy had not yet been used by the applicants, although they had lodged the present application after the mentioned judgment. - EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 21304/13
E.L. v. SWEDEN
On 9 July 2014 the applicant informed the Court that, after careful consideration, he wished to withdraw the application since, in view of the Government's observations and the Court's recent case-law (see, in particular, Eriksson v. Sweden, no. 60437/08, §§ 39-53, 12 April 2012; Ruminski v. Sweden (dec.), no. 10404/10, 21 May 2013; and Marinkovic v. Sweden (dec.), no. 43570/10, 10 December 2013), he found it likely that his application would be declared inadmissible since he had not lodged a claim for compensation for the alleged violation of the Convention with the Chancellor of Justice or the ordinary courts.