Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 9542/11 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,14690) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ISAKSSON v. SWEDEN
Inadmissible (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
ISAKSSON v. SWEDEN
Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (12)
- EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01
BRUSCO v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 9542/11
Furthermore, the assessment of whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is normally carried out with reference to the date on which the application was lodged with the Court (see, for example, Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX, and Andrei Georgiev v. Bulgaria, no. 61507/00, § 78, 26 July 2007). - EGMR, 02.10.2003 - 13596/02
ISAKSEN v. NORWAY
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 9542/11
Thus, the applicant's trial and conviction for this tax offence do not disclose any failure to comply with the requirements of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (see Isaksen v. Norway (dec.), no. 13596/02, 2 December 2003; Pirttimäki v. Finland, no. 35232/11, §§ 49-52, 20 May 2014; Larsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 64102/10, 13 January 2015; and Heinanen v. Finland (dec.), no. 947/13, 6 January 2015). - EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 61507/00
ANDREI GEORGIEV v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 9542/11
Furthermore, the assessment of whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is normally carried out with reference to the date on which the application was lodged with the Court (see, for example, Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX, and Andrei Georgiev v. Bulgaria, no. 61507/00, § 78, 26 July 2007).
- EGMR, 12.04.2012 - 60437/08
ERIKSSON v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 9542/11
Consequently, the Court has found that potential applicants may, as a general rule, be expected to lodge a domestic claim to seek compensation for alleged breaches of the Convention before applying to the Court (see Eriksson v. Sweden, no. 60437/08, §§ 50-52, 12 April 2012; Ruminski, §§ 37 and 39, cited above; and Marinkovic, §§ 39 and 41, cited above). - EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 10404/10
RUMINSKI v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 9542/11
Furthermore, a comprehensive summary of the issue of compensation for violations of the Convention in the Swedish legal order can be found in Ruminski v. Sweden ([dec.], no. 10404/10, §§ 14-28, 21 May 2013, Marinkovic v. Sweden ([dec.], no. 43570/10, §§ 18-26, 10 December 2013) and Johansson-Prakt and Salehzade v. Sweden ([dec.], no. 8610/11, §§ 49-60, 16 December 2014). - EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 66365/09
SAVICKAS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 9542/11
Consequently, there was an effective remedy available in Sweden when the applicant lodged the present application on 17 September 2010, nine months after the Supreme Court's judgment (see Savickas and Others v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 66365/09 et al., § 86, 15 October 2013). - EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 35232/11
PIRTTIMÄKI v. FINLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 9542/11
Thus, the applicant's trial and conviction for this tax offence do not disclose any failure to comply with the requirements of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (see Isaksen v. Norway (dec.), no. 13596/02, 2 December 2003; Pirttimäki v. Finland, no. 35232/11, §§ 49-52, 20 May 2014; Larsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 64102/10, 13 January 2015; and Heinanen v. Finland (dec.), no. 947/13, 6 January 2015). - EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 43570/10
MARINKOVIC v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 9542/11
Furthermore, a comprehensive summary of the issue of compensation for violations of the Convention in the Swedish legal order can be found in Ruminski v. Sweden ([dec.], no. 10404/10, §§ 14-28, 21 May 2013, Marinkovic v. Sweden ([dec.], no. 43570/10, §§ 18-26, 10 December 2013) and Johansson-Prakt and Salehzade v. Sweden ([dec.], no. 8610/11, §§ 49-60, 16 December 2014). - EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 8610/11
S.J.P. AND E.S. v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 9542/11
Furthermore, a comprehensive summary of the issue of compensation for violations of the Convention in the Swedish legal order can be found in Ruminski v. Sweden ([dec.], no. 10404/10, §§ 14-28, 21 May 2013, Marinkovic v. Sweden ([dec.], no. 43570/10, §§ 18-26, 10 December 2013) and Johansson-Prakt and Salehzade v. Sweden ([dec.], no. 8610/11, §§ 49-60, 16 December 2014). - EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 947/13
HEINANEN v. FINLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 9542/11
Thus, the applicant's trial and conviction for this tax offence do not disclose any failure to comply with the requirements of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (see Isaksen v. Norway (dec.), no. 13596/02, 2 December 2003; Pirttimäki v. Finland, no. 35232/11, §§ 49-52, 20 May 2014; Larsson v. Sweden (dec.), no. 64102/10, 13 January 2015; and Heinanen v. Finland (dec.), no. 947/13, 6 January 2015). - EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 64102/10
LARSSON v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 7356/10
LUCKY DEV CONTRE LA SUÈDE