Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 45199/09   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2013,11534
EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 45199/09 (https://dejure.org/2013,11534)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21.05.2013 - 45199/09 (https://dejure.org/2013,11534)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21. Mai 2013 - 45199/09 (https://dejure.org/2013,11534)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,11534) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
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 ... (3)

  • EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 486/14

    Psychiatrie-Opfer scheitert mit erneuter Beschwerde

    This weighs in favour of considering the applicant's complaint incompatible ratione materiae (compare Steck-Risch and Others, cited above; Kudeshkina, cited above; and Meltex Ltd. v. Armenia (dec.), no. 45199/09, 21 May 2013; compare and contrast Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT), cited above, where the domestic courts had relied on new grounds to dismiss an application to reopen a case (ibid., § 65)).
  • EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 28727/11

    KUDESHKINA v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

    In Meltex Ltd v. Armenia ((dec.), no. 45199/09, 21 May 2013) the Court found that it had no jurisdiction to examine a complaint concerning the refusal of the domestic courts to reopen the applicant company's case following the Court's finding of a violation of Article 10. In deciding whether there had been relevant new information the Court noted that the Court of Cassation had dismissed the applicant company's reopening request, stating that no such requirement had emanated from the Court's earlier judgment.
  • EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 26290/12

    BURDIASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

    However, even assuming that the Court has jurisdiction in the present case to verify whether or not the respondent State has complied with its obligations under Article 46 of the Convention (compare with Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 35, ECHR 2015; Egmez v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 12214/07, § 50, 18 September 2012; Kudeshkina v. Russia (no. 2) (dec.), no. 28727/11, §§ 74-81, 17 February 2015; Rózsa v. Hungary (dec.), no. 53815/11, § 15, 7 April 2015; Harabin v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 33800/14, § 31, 2 June 2015; Meltex Ltd v. Armenia (dec.), no. 45199/09, §§ 37-41, 21 May 2013; Costica Moldovan and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 8229/04, §§ 125-127, 15 February 2011; Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 5980/07, 6 July 2010; Krcmár and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 69190/01, 30 March 2004, and Lyons and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 15227/03, ECHR 2003-IX), the Court cannot enter into a discussion of whether or not the legislative Amendments of 19 April 2011 have sufficiently remedied the situation exposed in its judgment of 2 February 2010 in the case of Klaus and Yuri Kiladze.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht