Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 35377/05   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2010,63500
EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 35377/05 (https://dejure.org/2010,63500)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21.12.2010 - 35377/05 (https://dejure.org/2010,63500)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21. Dezember 2010 - 35377/05 (https://dejure.org/2010,63500)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,63500) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges




Kontextvorschau:





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (9)  

  • EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05

    KORNEYKOVA v. UKRAINE

    This is particularly so where there is a need to advance new arguments for release or where the arguments are closely connected to the applicant's character and personal situation (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 91-92, 1 June 2006; Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 37138/06, § 207, 9 November 2010; and Michalko v. Slovakia, no. 35377/05, §§ 159-161, 21 December 2010).
  • EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 41238/05

    KARLIN v. SLOVAKIA

    The relevant statutory provisions and judicial practice are summarised in Michalák v. Slovakia (no. 30157/03, § 92, 8 February 2011); Michalko v. Slovakia (no. 35377/05, §§ 48 to 64, 21 December 2010); Osváthová v. Slovakia (no. 15684/05, §§ 37 to 46, 21 December 2010); Pavletic v. Slovakia (no. 39359/98, §§ 50 to 52, 22 June 2004), and Havala v. Slovakia ((dec.), no. 47804/99, 13 September 2001).
  • EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 36997/08

    CERNÁK v. SLOVAKIA

    Nevertheless, in view of this personal submission, the complexity of the issues in relation to the rule of speciality, and the fact that with the exception of the detention order of 2 February 2007 all of the contested decisions were taken in private, that is to say without the presence of the applicant or his lawyer, the Court considers that it would have been advisable that the applicant's subsequent interlocutory appeal against the order for the extension of his detention be heard orally (see Michalko v. Slovakia, no. 35377/05, §§ 160 and 161, 21 December 2010).
  • EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 30157/03

    MICHALAK v. SLOVAKIA

    The relevant provisions and judicial practice are summarised in the Court's judgment in the case of Stetiar and Sutek v. Slovakia (nos. 20271/06 and 17517/07, §§ 31 to 33, 40 and 47, 23 November 2010); Gál v. Slovakia (no. 45426/06, §§ 19 to 22 and 27, 30 November 2010); Michalko v. Slovakia (no. 35377/05, §§ 39 to 41, 65 and 77, 21 December 2010).
  • EGMR, 28.04.2015 - 15259/11

    MASLÁK c. SLOVAQUIE

    The Court summarised its case-law relevant to the issue at hand for example in the cases of Mooren v. Germany [GC] (no. 11364/03, § 106, ECHR 2009-...); Stetiar and Sutek v. Slovakia (nos. 20271/06 and 17517/07, § 128, 23 November 2010; Gál v. Slovakia (no. 45426/06, § 62, 30 November 2010); Michalko v. Slovakia (no. 35377/05, § 167, 21 December 2010); and Osváthová v. Slovakia (no. 15684/05, § 69, 21 December 2010).
  • EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 11037/12

    MASLÁK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

    The Court summarised its case-law relevant to the issue at hand for example in the cases of Mooren v. Germany [GC] (no. 11364/03, § 106, ECHR 2009-...); Stetiar and Sutek v. Slovakia (nos. 20271/06 and 17517/07, § 128, 23 November 2010; Gál v. Slovakia (no. 45426/06, § 62, 30 November 2010); Michalko v. Slovakia (no. 35377/05, § 167, 21 December 2010); and Osváthová v. Slovakia (no. 15684/05, § 69, 21 December 2010).
  • EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 21056/08

    MARTIKÁN v. SLOVAKIA

    Furthermore, the Court considers it useful to distinguish the present case from those of Osváthová (cited above, § 83), Michalko v. Slovakia (no. 35377/05, § 175, 21 December 2010), and Michalák v. Slovakia (no. 30157/03, § 202, 8 February 2011), in which a violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention was found, in that - contrary to the present case - in those cases the applicants" constitutional complaints had been unsuccessful in substance.
  • EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 7517/10

    DURACKA v. SLOVAKIA

    In reaching this conclusion, the Court has taken into account, inter alia, the fact that the time-limit for lodging a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution is as long as two months, that there is no indication that the applicant did not have ample opportunity to lodge his complaint earlier and that, consequently, the essence of the remedy at issue was not impaired (see, mutatis mutandis, Michalko v. Slovakia, no. 35377/05, § 139, 21 December 2010).
  • EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 16502/09

    LOYKA v. SLOVAKIA

    Furthermore, the Court considers it useful to distinguish the present case from those of Osváthová (cited above, § 83), Michalko v. Slovakia (no. 35377/05, § 175, 21 December 2010), and Michalák v. Slovakia (no. 30157/03, § 202, 8 February 2011), in which a violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention was found, in that - contrary to the present case - in those cases the applicants" constitutional complaints had been unsuccessful in substance.
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