Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIRENIC-HUZJAK AND JERKOVIC v. CROATIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MIRENIC-HUZJAK AND JERKOVIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 39311/05

  KARAKO v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 72996/16

  At the outset the Court reiterates that if more than one potentially effective remedy is available, the applicant is only required to have used one of them (see Moreira Barbosa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 65681/01, ECHR 2004-V (extracts); Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts); Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 14, 28 April 2009; and Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 39, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 45744/08

  JASINSKIS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 72996/16

  To sum up, if domestic law provides for several parallel remedies in different fields of law, an applicant who has sought to obtain redress for an alleged breach of the Convention through one of these remedies is not necessarily required to use others which have essentially the same objective (see Jasinskis v. Latvia, no. 45744/08, §§ 50 and 53-54, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 29810/03

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 72996/16

  Indeed, when one remedy has been attempted, use of another remedy which has essentially the same purpose is not required (see Riad and Idiab v. Belgium, nos. 29787/03 and 29810/03, § 84, 24 January 2008; Kozacioglu v. Turkey [GC], no. 2334/03, §§ 44 et seq., 19 February 2009; Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 58, ECHR 2009; and Lagutin and Others v. Russia, nos. 6228/09 and 4 others, § 75, 24 April 2014).
• EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 6228/09

  LAGUTIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 72996/16

  Indeed, when one remedy has been attempted, use of another remedy which has essentially the same purpose is not required (see Riad and Idiab v. Belgium, nos. 29787/03 and 29810/03, § 84, 24 January 2008; Kozacioglu v. Turkey [GC], no. 2334/03, §§ 44 et seq., 19 February 2009; Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 58, ECHR 2009; and Lagutin and Others v. Russia, nos. 6228/09 and 4 others, § 75, 24 April 2014).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

  Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 72996/16

  At the outset the Court reiterates that if more than one potentially effective remedy is available, the applicant is only required to have used one of them (see Moreira Barbosa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 65681/01, ECHR 2004-V (extracts); Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts); Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 14, 28 April 2009; and Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 39, ECHR 1999-III).

• EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 53050/21

  ZLATANOV v. BULGARIA

  To comply with the exhaustion rule in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, applicants who have at their disposal a domestic remedy plainly more suited to their situation must attempt it, even if they have already resorted to a less effective one (see Dumpe v. Latvia, no. 71506/13, §§ 61 and 70-76, 16 October 2018; Mirenic-Huzjak and Jerkovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 72996/16, §§ 54-56, 24 September 2019; and Köhler v. Germany (dec.), no. 3443/18, §§ 67-74, 7 September 2021).
• EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 3669/16

  DURKAN AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Under the Civil Procedure Act ("the CPA") in force at the material time, parties could lodge an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court in very limited circumstances, such as in certain types of employment disputes, or if the value of the subject-matter in dispute reached a certain threshold (so-called "ordinary" appeal on points of law under section 382(1) of the CPA, cited in paragraph 26 of Mirenic-Huzjak and Jerkovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 72996/16, 24 September 2019).