Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MILER v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 8, Art. 14, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 39343/98

  KLEYN AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 56347/10

  An applicant cannot be regarded as having failed to exhaust domestic remedies if he or she can show, by providing relevant domestic case-law or any other suitable evidence, that an available remedy which he or she has not used was bound to fail (see Kleyn and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], nos. 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98 and 46664/99, § 156, ECHR 2003-VI, and Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 39, Series A no. 290).
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 56347/10

  An applicant cannot be regarded as having failed to exhaust domestic remedies if he or she can show, by providing relevant domestic case-law or any other suitable evidence, that an available remedy which he or she has not used was bound to fail (see Kleyn and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], nos. 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98 and 46664/99, § 156, ECHR 2003-VI, and Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 39, Series A no. 290).
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 56347/10

  However, the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile, is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust domestic remedies (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 70, 17 September 2009).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 56347/10

  In this way, it is an important aspect of the principle that the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights (see McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 112, 10 September 2010; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI; and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06

  McFARLANE v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 56347/10

  In this way, it is an important aspect of the principle that the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights (see McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 112, 10 September 2010; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI; and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).

• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 60439/12

  ZIROVNICKÝ c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

  Le Gouvernement indique enfin qu'après avoir exercé les recours préventifs susmentionnés, le requérant aurait pu et dû contester des mesures ou ingérences litigieuses par un recours constitutionnel, qui constitue en principe un recours effectif, y compris dans le domaine pénitentiaire (Miler c. République tchèque (déc.), no 56347/10, §§ 24-25, 25 septembre 2012, et Stepankiv c. République tchèque (déc.), no 55488/08, 23 octobre 2012).
• EGMR, 10.09.2013 - 663/11

  NEDYALKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  In particular, an applicant cannot be regarded as having failed to exhaust domestic remedies if he or she can show, by providing relevant domestic case-law or other suitable evidence, that a remedy which he or she has not used was bound to fail or had a negligible prospect of success (see Kleyn and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], nos. 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98 and 46664/99, § 156, ECHR 2003-VI; Miler v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 56347/10, § 21, 25 September 2012; and Vomocil and Art. 38, a.s. v. the Czech Republic (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 25.10.2012 - 30241/11

  BUISHVILI v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  The Court observes that alongside its general interpretation of the principle of exhaustion of domestic remedies laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, for instance, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V), it usually requires, in respect of applications against the Czech Republic, that the applicants lodge a constitutional appeal unless they can provide cogent reasons that it is not an effective remedy in their case (see Miler v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 56347/10, § 24, 25 September 2012).
• EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 5044/04

  SVOBODEN ZHELEZNICHARSKI SINDIKAT 'PROMYANA' v. BULGARIA

  An applicant cannot be regarded as having failed to exhaust domestic remedies if it can show, by providing relevant domestic case-law or other suitable evidence, that a remedy which it has not used was bound to fail or had a negligible prospect of success (see Kleyn and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], nos. 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98 and 46664/99, § 156, ECHR 2003-VI; Miler v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 56347/10, § 21, 25 September 2012; and Vomocil and Art. 38, a.s. v. the Czech Republic (dec.), nos.