Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  POPOVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 12 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  POPOVIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 12 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 10044/11

  GOLUBOVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 75915/12

  At the same time, the exhaustion rule normally requires that the complaints intended to be made subsequently at Strasbourg should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 144 and 146, ECHR 2010) and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200, and Golubovic and Others v. Serbia (dec.), no. 10044/11 et seq., 17 September 2013) and, further, that any procedural means that might prevent a breach of the Convention should have been used (see, as the original authority, Akdivar, cited above, § 66, and as a recent authority, Vuckovic, cited above, § 72).
• EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99

  Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 75915/12

  46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 and 21819/04, § 69, ECHR 2010, and Vuckovic and Others v. Serbia [GC], no. 17153/11, § 69, 25 March 2014).
• EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 3843/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 75915/12

  46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 and 21819/04, § 69, ECHR 2010, and Vuckovic and Others v. Serbia [GC], no. 17153/11, § 69, 25 March 2014).

 
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 44759/98

  Verletzung des Rechts auf ein faires Verfahren durch überlange Verfahrensdauer; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 75915/12

  In addition or in the alternative, the Government argued that the proceedings in the present cases had not involved the applicants" "civil rights and obligations" within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention, but concerned questions relating to local taxation, which clearly came within the sphere of public-law relationships and did not attract the guarantees of that Article (the Government referred to Ferrazzini v. Italy [GC], no. 44759/98, § 29, ECHR 2001-VII).
• EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99

  BALOGH v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 75915/12

  To be effective, a remedy must be capable of remedying directly the impugned state of affairs and must offer reasonable prospects of success (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 30, 20 July 2004, and Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 46, ECHR 2006-II).
• EGMR, 26.03.1992 - 11760/85

  ÉDITIONS PÉRISCOPE v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 75915/12

  Furthermore, tax disputes, despite the pecuniary effects which they necessarily produce for the taxpayer, do not attract, in principle, the applicability of Article 6 § 1 under its civil head (see Ferrazzini, cited above, §§ 24-31; Västberga Taxi Aktiebolag and Vulic v. Sweden, no. 369985/97, § 75, 23 July 2002; Optim and Industerre v. Belgium (dec.), no. 23819/06, 11 September 2012; and Di Belmonte v. Italy (no. 2)(dec.), no. 72665/01, 3 June 2004), although some exceptions to this rule exist (see National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom, 23 October 1997, Reports 1997-VII, and Editions Périscope v. France, 26 March 1992, Series A no. 234-B).
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 75915/12

  At the same time, the exhaustion rule normally requires that the complaints intended to be made subsequently at Strasbourg should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 144 and 146, ECHR 2010) and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200, and Golubovic and Others v. Serbia (dec.), no. 10044/11 et seq., 17 September 2013) and, further, that any procedural means that might prevent a breach of the Convention should have been used (see, as the original authority, Akdivar, cited above, § 66, and as a recent authority, Vuckovic, cited above, § 72).
• EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

  BRUSCO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 75915/12

  However, 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 Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 75915/12

  States are therefore dispensed from answering 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 regards complaints against a State are thus obliged to use first the remedies provided by the national legal system (see, among many authorities, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 65, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, and Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).

• LG Waldshut-Tiengen, 21.11.2013 - 5 Qs 19/13

  Jugendstrafverfahren: Voraussetzungen der Pflichtverteidigerbestellung

  (3) Die Anklage vom 18.04.2013 - 12 Ds 13 Js 1436/13 Jug.

  Auf Anregung des Gerichts hat die Staatsanwaltschaft Waldshut-Tiengen im Verfahren 12 Ds 13 Js 1436/13 Jug.

  a) Ein länger dauerndes Verfahren, in dem zahlreiche Zeugen zu vernehmen sein werden, ist nicht zu erwarten, zumal im Verfahren 12 Ds 13 Js 1436/13 hinsichtlich der Fälle 2 bis 4 der Anklage eine Einstellung des Verfahrens nach § 154 Abs. 2 StPO absehbar ist.