Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KAPITONOVS v. LATVIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Struck out of the list (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 16999/02
• EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 16999/02

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 25149/03

  Rechtssache V. H. gegen die NIEDERLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 16999/02

  Depending on the particulars of each case, it is conceivable that further considerations may come into play in the assessment of a unilateral declaration for the purposes of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar, cited above, §§ 76-77, and also Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden (striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006, and Van Houten v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX).
• EGMR, 13.02.2007 - 31535/03

  VENERA-NORD-VEST BORTA A.G. v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 16999/02

  However, as it has stated in earlier cases (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 74, ECHR 2003-VI, and Venera-Nord-Vest Borta A.G. v. Moldova, no. 31535/03, § 28, 13 February 2007), a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, declarations made in the context of strictly confidential friendly settlement proceedings (Article 38 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court) and, on the other hand, unilateral declarations made by a respondent Government in public and adversarial proceedings before the Court.
• EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 6301/05

  THE ESTATE OF NITSCHKE v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 16999/02

  In accordance with Article 38 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the Court will proceed on the basis of the Government's unilateral declaration and the applicant's statement in respect thereof submitted outside the framework of friendly-settlement negotiations, and will disregard the parties" statements made in the context of exploring the possibilities for a friendly settlement of the case and the reasons why the parties were unable to agree on the terms of a friendly settlement (see Estate of Nitschke v. Sweden, no. 6301/05, § 36, 27 September 2007).

• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 44898/10

  JERONOVICS v. LATVIA

  In each instance, it is the specific circumstances of the case which will determine whether the unilateral declaration offers a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (see Tahsin Acar, cited above, § 75; see also, for example, Van Houten v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 25149/03, § 33, ECHR 2005-IX; Swedish Transport Workers" Union v. Sweden (striking out), no. 53507/99, § 24, 18 July 2006; Kalanyos and Others v. Romania, no. 57884/00, § 25, 26 April 2007; Kladivík and Kasiar v. Slovakia (dec.) (striking out), no. 41484/04, 28 August 2007; Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.) (striking out), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007; Stark and Others v. Finland (striking out), no. 39559/02, § 23, 9 October 2007; Feldhaus v. Germany (dec.) (striking out), no. 10583/02, 13 May 2008; and Kapitonovs v. Latvia (dec.) (striking out), no. 16999/02, 24 June 2008).
• EGMR, 09.09.2008 - 12037/03

  OZOLINS v. LATVIA

  To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar, cited above, §§ 75-77, Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden (striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006, and Van Houten v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX, and also Kapitonovs v. Latvia (striking out), no. 16999/02, 24 June 2008).
• EGMR, 02.09.2008 - 6904/02

  BORISOVS v. LATVIA

  To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar, cited above, §§ 75-77, Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden (striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006, and Van Houten v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX, and also Kapitonovs v. Latvia (striking out), no. 16999/02, 24 June 2008).

 
• EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 7843/02

  DAGIS v. LATVIA

  To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; Kapitonovs v. Latvia (striking out.), no. 16999/02, 24 June 2008, Ozolins v. Latvia (striking out), no. 12037/03, 2 September 2008 and Borisovs v. Latvia (striking out) no. 6904/02, 2 September 2008).
• EGMR, 25.05.2010 - 37862/02

  EPNERS-GEFNERS v. LATVIA

  To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; Kapitonovs v. Latvia (striking out), no. 16999/02, 24 June 2008; Ozolins v. Latvia (striking out), no. 12037/03, 2 September 2008; and Borisovs v. Latvia (striking out) no. 6904/02, 2 September 2008).
• EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 29254/05

  PETROVS v. LATVIA

  To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; Kapitonovs v. Latvia (striking out.), no. 16999/02, 24 June 2008, Urtans v. Latvia, no. 25623/04, 7 April 2009).
• EGMR, 09.02.2010 - 31629/07

  APARS v. LATVIA

  To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; Kapitonovs v. Latvia (striking out.), no. 16999/02, 24 June 2008, Urtans v. Latvia, no. 25623/04, 7 April 2009.
• EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 4044/02

  SUTOVS v. LATVIA

  To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar, cited above, §§ 75-77, Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden (striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006, and Van Houten v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX, and also Kapitonovs v. Latvia (striking out), no. 16999/02, 24 June 2008, Ozolins v. Latvia (striking out), no. 12037/03, 2 September 2008 and Borisovs v. Latvia (striking out), no. 6904/02, 2 September 2008).
• EGMR, 05.05.2009 - 2233/03

  DOBROVOLSKIS v. LATVIA

  To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar, cited above, §§ 75-77, Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden (striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006, and Van Houten v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX, and also Kapitonovs v. Latvia (striking out), no. 16999/02, 24 June 2008, Ozolins v. Latvia (striking out), no. 12037/03, 2 September 2008 and Borisovs v. Latvia (striking out), no. 6904/02, 2 September 2008).
• EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 12569/03

  PANASENKOVS v. LATVIA

  To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar, cited above, §§ 75-77; Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden (striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006; Van Houten v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX; Kapitonovs v. Latvia (striking out), no. 16999/02, 24 June 2008; Ozolins v. Latvia (striking out), no. 12037/03, 2 September 2008; and Borisovs v. Latvia (striking out), no. 6904/02, 2 September 2008).
• EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 25623/04

  URTANS v. LATVIA