Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PETROIU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 30105/05
• EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 30105/05
• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 30105/05

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 30105/05

  As soon as the Court is satisfied that the domestic legal system provided such a remedy and that the applicant has not used it, it falls to the applicant to establish that the remedy was for some reason inadequate and ineffective in the particular circumstances of the case or that there existed special circumstances absolving him from the requirement (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 30105/05

  For practical reasons Mrs Maria-Alexandra Sterian, Mr Florin-Constantin Stancescu and Mr Doru Danut Dumitru Popescu will continue to be called "the applicants" in this judgment, although Mr Bogdan-Andrei Sterian, Ms Ruxandra-Mariana Stavre and Mrs Didona Emilia Didea are now to be regarded as such (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999-VI).
• EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 57001/00

  STRAIN ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 30105/05

  The relevant legal provisions and jurisprudence are described in the judgments Brumarescu v. Romania ([GC], no. 28342/95, §§ 31-33, ECHR 1999-VII); Strain and Others v. Romania (no. 57001/00, §§ 19-26, ECHR 2005-VII); Paduraru v. Romania (no. 63252/00, §§ 38-53, 1 December 2005); and Tudor v. Romania (no. 29035/05, §§ 15-20, 17 January 2008).

 
• EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 57952/00

  ELSANOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 30105/05

  A mere doubt as to the prospect of success is not sufficient to exempt an applicant from submitting a complaint to the competent court (see, for example, Elsanova v. Russia (dec.), no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005).
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 29035/05

  TUDOR c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 30105/05

  The relevant legal provisions and jurisprudence are described in the judgments Brumarescu v. Romania ([GC], no. 28342/95, §§ 31-33, ECHR 1999-VII); Strain and Others v. Romania (no. 57001/00, §§ 19-26, ECHR 2005-VII); Paduraru v. Romania (no. 63252/00, §§ 38-53, 1 December 2005); and Tudor v. Romania (no. 29035/05, §§ 15-20, 17 January 2008).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 30105/05

  The Court reiterates that the purpose of Article 35 of the Convention is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Convention institutions (see, for example, Hentrich v. France, 22 September 1994, § 33, Series A no. 296-A).
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 30105/05

  Thus the complaint intended to be made subsequently to the Court must first have been made - at least in substance - to the appropriate domestic body 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).