Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOZLOVA ET SMIRNOVA contre la LETTONIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 57 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOZLOVA and SMIRNOVA v. LATVIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 57 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Wird zitiert von ... (17)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 57381/00

  As it has examined the applicants" complaints under Article 6 § 1, it does not consider it necessary to examine the case under Article 13 also (see, among many other authorities, British-American Tobacco Company Ltd v. the Netherlands, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 331, p. 29, § 89; Brualla Gómez de la Torre v. Spain, judgment of 19 December 1997, Reports 1997-VIII, p. 2956, § 41; and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 146, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 29.04.1988 - 10328/83

  BELILOS v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 57381/00

  The Court reiterates that by "reservation of a general character" in Article 57 § 1 is meant a reservation which does not refer to a specific provision of the Convention or is couched in terms that are too vague or broad for it to be possible to determine their exact meaning and scope (see Belilos v. Switzerland, judgment of 29 April 1988, Series A no. 132, p. 26, § 55; and Chorherr v. Austria, judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-B, p. 35, § 18).
• EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13308/87

  CHORHERR v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 57381/00

  The Court reiterates that by "reservation of a general character" in Article 57 § 1 is meant a reservation which does not refer to a specific provision of the Convention or is couched in terms that are too vague or broad for it to be possible to determine their exact meaning and scope (see Belilos v. Switzerland, judgment of 29 April 1988, Series A no. 132, p. 26, § 55; and Chorherr v. Austria, judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-B, p. 35, § 18).
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 19589/92

  BRITISH-AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY LTD c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 57381/00

  As it has examined the applicants" complaints under Article 6 § 1, it does not consider it necessary to examine the case under Article 13 also (see, among many other authorities, British-American Tobacco Company Ltd v. the Netherlands, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 331, p. 29, § 89; Brualla Gómez de la Torre v. Spain, judgment of 19 December 1997, Reports 1997-VIII, p. 2956, § 41; and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 146, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 18640/10

  GRANDE STEVENS AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  However, a reservation which does not refer to or mention those specific provision of the Italian legal order which exclude offences or proceedings from the scope of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 does not afford to a sufficient degree a guarantee that [it] does not go beyond the provision expressly excluded by the Contracting State (see, mutatis mutandis, Chorherr v. Austria, 25 August 1993, § 20, Series A no. 266-B; Gradinger v. Austria, 23 October 1995, § 51, Series A no. 328-C; and Eisenstecken, cited above, § 29; see also, in contrast, Kozlova and Smirnova v. Latvia (dec.), no. 57381/00, ECHR 2001-XI).
• EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 56422/09

  SCHÄDLER-EBERLE v. LIECHTENSTEIN

  In order for a reservation to be applicable to the case at issue, the measures or proceedings complained of must have been governed by the law(s) covered by the reservation (compare, for instance, Gradinger v. Austria, 23 October 1995, § 39, Series A no. 328-C; Koslova and Smirnova v. Latvia (dec.), no. 57381/00, 23 October 2001; and Dacosta Silva v. Spain, no. 69966/01, §§ 34, 37, ECHR 2006-XIII).
• EGMR, 05.11.2002 - 32576/96

  WYNEN AND CENTRE HOSPITALIER INTERRÉGIONAL EDITH-CAVELL v. BELGIUM

  In particular, it is not competent to examine applications relating to errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court, or to substitute its own assessment for that of the national courts unless and in so far as these errors may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, for example, García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I, and Kozlova and Smirnova v. Latvia (dec.), no. 57381/00, ECHR 2001-XI).

 
• EGMR, 25.10.2012 - 71243/01

  VISTINS ET PEREPJOLKINS c. LETTONIE

  Even though the measure was not formally taken under the legislation on denationalisation or land and real-estate reform - which was removed from the scope of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as a result of the reservation made by Latvia (see Kozlova and Smirnova v. Latvia (dec.), no. 57381/00, ECHR 2001-XI, and Liepajnieks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37586/06, § 49, 2 November 2010) - the Court finds it appropriate to go beyond a formalistic approach and to consider the land reform in its broader sense.
• EGMR, 18.11.2020 - 54155/16

  SLOVÉNIE c. CROATIE

  Furthermore, even if the key preliminary question raised by the case is directly linked to the subject-matter of the application, it cannot be equated with the issue of compatibility ratione materiae either, since this admissibility criterion has always been understood as exclusively referring to the material contents of the rights guaranteed by the Convention and its Protocols (see, e.g., Károly Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 56665/09, §§ 77-78, 14 September 2017, or, in respect of a specific respondent State in case of a valid reservation, Kozlova and Smirnova v. Latvia (dec.), no. 57381/00, ECHR 2001-XI).
• EGMR, 11.01.2005 - 58580/00

  BLÜCHER c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  En ce qui concerne les différences d'opinions dénoncées par le requérant, la Cour note que de telles divergences constituent, par nature, la conséquence inhérente à tout système judiciaire englobant un ensemble de juridictions et que, en l'absence d'arbitraire, les modalités d'application du droit interne échappent à sa compétence (voir, mutatis mutandis, Zielinski et Pradal & Gonzalez et autres c. France [GC], nos 24846/94 et 34165/96 à 34173/96, § 59, CEDH 1999-VII ; Kozlova et Smirnova c. Lettonie (déc.), no 57381/00, CEDH 2001-XI).
• EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 37536/16

  KOTOVICA AND OTHERS v. LATVIA

  The Court recalls that it has found that the reservation at issue was valid under Article 57 of the Convention (see Kozlova and Smirnova v. Latvia (dec.), no. 57381/00, ECHR 2001-XI).
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 37586/06

  LIEPAJNIEKS v. LATVIA

  The Court notes that it has had an opportunity to examine the validity of the reservation submitted by the Latvian Government (see Kozlova and Smirnova v. Latvia (dec.), no. 57381/00, ECHR 2001-XI) and to observe the following:.
• EGMR, 14.02.2004 - 63151/00

  STECK-RISCH and OTHERS v. LIECHTENSTEIN

  L'expression « réserve de caractère général'vise en particulier une réserve ne se rapportant pas à une disposition spécifique de la Convention, ou bien rédigée en des termes trop vagues ou amples pour que l'on puisse en apprécier le sens et le champ d'application exacts (arrêts Belilos c. Suisse, 29 avril 1988, série A no 132, p. 26, § 55, Chorherr c. Autriche, 25 août 1993, série A no 266-B, p. 34, § 18, et, récemment, Kozlova et Smirnova c. Lettonie (déc.), no 57381/00, CEDH 2001-XI).
• EGMR, 19.03.2013 - 3674/09

  SOLAKOGLU ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Pour autant que les requérants se plaignent du fait que les juridictions internes ont statué sur leur affaire sans attendre l'arrêt de la Cour constitutionnelle, la Cour estime qu'il s'agit là des modalités d'application du droit interne et ne constate aucune apparence d'arbitraire (voir, mutatis mutandis, Kozlova et Smirnova c. Lettonie (déc.), no 57381/00, 23 octobre 2001).
• EGMR, 04.05.2017 - 39210/07

  OSIPKOVS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 25082/05

  DZIRNIS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 70926/01

  BROKA v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 03.05.2005 - 5497/03

  CIHLARSKE SDRUZENI, A. S. c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
• EGMR, 21.10.2004 - 71225/01

  K. c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 14.01.2003 - 33359/96

  MARGINEAN contre la ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 17193/08

  PAROISSE DE DEJ DE L'ÉGLISE ROUMAINE UNIE À ROME (GRÉCO-CATHOLIQUE) c. ROUMANIE