Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KÓSA v. HUNGARY

  Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KÓSA v. HUNGARY

  Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 53461/15

  This is an important aspect of the subsidiary nature of the Convention machinery (see, for example, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99

  Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 53461/15

  46113/99 and 7 others, § 87, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 53461/15

  At the same time, there is a need to apply the rule with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism, given the context of protecting human rights (see Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 89, Series A no. 13).

 
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 53461/15

  Access to justice for members of such groups should be facilitated so as to provide effective protection of rights: the Convention is intended to guarantee rights which are "practical and effective" rather than theoretical and illusory (see, for example, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 105, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 27.04.2004 - 62543/00

  GORRAIZ LIZARRAGA ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 53461/15

  Since the national law specifically envisaged that legal avenue as a means of defending interests at stake (see, mutatis mutandis, Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, no. 62543/00, §§ 38-39, ECHR 2004-III), the Court considers that, in principle, it would be conceivable to accept the public interest litigation as a form of exhausting domestic remedies, for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 04.12.2015 - 47143/06

  EGMR verurteilt Russland wegen geheimer Telefonüberwachung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 53461/15

  The Court has consistently held in its case-law that the Convention does not provide for the institution of an actio popularis, and that its task is not normally to review the relevant law and practice in abstracto, but to determine whether the manner in which they have been applied to an applicant or have affected the applicant gives rise to a violation of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 164, ECHR 2015).
• EKMR, 03.05.1993 - 16278/90

  KARADUMAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 53461/15

  The Court reiterates that, while it is not obliged to reject a complaint for failure to exhaust domestic remedies on account of the fact that appeals were still pending at the time when it was introduced (see Karaduman v. Turkey, no. 16278/90, Commission decision of 3 May 1993, Decisions and Reports (DR) 74, p. 106), the assessment of whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is normally carried out with reference to the date on which an application is lodged - although, as it has held on many occasions, this rule is subject to exceptions, which may be justified by the particular circumstances of each case (see Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (dec.) [GC], nos.

• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 53600/20

  Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz u.a. ./. Schweiz - Staatliche Maßnahmen gegen …

  Furthermore, even if this criterion were to be taken "into account" in future cases it will remain to be seen whether (and, if so, how) the Court is going to determine whether the exhaustion requirement has been fulfilled by reference to possible domestic litigation brought by "other affected individuals" over which litigation, by definition, the association will not have had any control or influence (for an example of the inverse situation in this context see Kósa v. Hungary (Dec.), no. 53461/15, §§ 59-63, 21 November 2017).
• EGMR, 01.02.2024 - 22431/20

  UGULAVA v. GEORGIA (No. 2)

  In any event, according to the Court's case-law, even the public-interest litigation cannot exonerate an individual applicant from bringing his or her own domestic proceedings if the former did not correspond exactly to the applicant's individual situation (see Kósa v. Hungary (dec.), no. 53461/15, §§ 55-63, 21 November 2017).
• EGMR, 31.05.2022 - 73548/17

  X AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  In view of the Commissioner's decision to recognize ERRC's standing before that authority, the Court has no reason to doubt that domestic law provided for the ERRC's right to initiate the proceedings in question on behalf of the Roma and Egyptian pupils attending the "Naim Frashëri" school (see, mutatis mutandis, Kósa v. Hungary (dec.), no. 53461/15, §§ 56-57, 21 November 2017, and J.M.B. and Others v. France, nos.