Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SCHRADE v. GEORGIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [FRE]

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

• EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 54388/09

  GALOVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 52240/07

  In such cases, the pure financial loss or the amount of the initial claim involved cannot be taken as the sole indication of a "significant disadvantage", and the applicant's subjective perceptions and what was objectively at stake for him ought to be assessed rather in a much more general way, by having regard to all particular circumstances of the given case (see Havelka v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 7332/10, ECHR 20 September 2011; Shefer v. Russia (dec.), no. 45175/04, §§ 21 and 23; 13 March 2012; and Galovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 54388/09, §§ 71-73, 5 March 2013).

  It is the "case" understood in that way that has to be "duly considered by a domestic tribunal" for the purposes of Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention (see also, amongst many others Galovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 54388/09, § 76, 5 March 2013; and also Cecchetti v. San Marino (dec.), no. 40174/08, §§ 39-45, 9 April 2013).

• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 25551/05

  KOROLEV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 52240/07

  The Court previously held that the criterion of whether an applicant has suffered a significant disadvantage applies where, notwithstanding a potential violation of a right from a purely legal point of view, the level of severity attained does not warrant consideration by an international court (see Ionescu v. Romania (dec), no. 36659/04, 1 June 2010; Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010; and Holub v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 24880/05, 14 December 2010).
• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 24880/05

  HOLUB c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 52240/07

  The Court previously held that the criterion of whether an applicant has suffered a significant disadvantage applies where, notwithstanding a potential violation of a right from a purely legal point of view, the level of severity attained does not warrant consideration by an international court (see Ionescu v. Romania (dec), no. 36659/04, 1 June 2010; Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010; and Holub v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 24880/05, 14 December 2010).

 
• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 7332/10

  HAVELKA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 52240/07

  In such cases, the pure financial loss or the amount of the initial claim involved cannot be taken as the sole indication of a "significant disadvantage", and the applicant's subjective perceptions and what was objectively at stake for him ought to be assessed rather in a much more general way, by having regard to all particular circumstances of the given case (see Havelka v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 7332/10, ECHR 20 September 2011; Shefer v. Russia (dec.), no. 45175/04, §§ 21 and 23; 13 March 2012; and Galovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 54388/09, §§ 71-73, 5 March 2013).
• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 36659/04

  IONESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 52240/07

  The Court previously held that the criterion of whether an applicant has suffered a significant disadvantage applies where, notwithstanding a potential violation of a right from a purely legal point of view, the level of severity attained does not warrant consideration by an international court (see Ionescu v. Romania (dec), no. 36659/04, 1 June 2010; Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010; and Holub v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 24880/05, 14 December 2010).
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 45175/04

  SHEFER v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 52240/07

  In such cases, the pure financial loss or the amount of the initial claim involved cannot be taken as the sole indication of a "significant disadvantage", and the applicant's subjective perceptions and what was objectively at stake for him ought to be assessed rather in a much more general way, by having regard to all particular circumstances of the given case (see Havelka v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 7332/10, ECHR 20 September 2011; Shefer v. Russia (dec.), no. 45175/04, §§ 21 and 23; 13 March 2012; and Galovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 54388/09, §§ 71-73, 5 March 2013).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 52240/07

  As to the second element for the purpose of application of Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention, the Court observes that the complaint about the length of the court proceedings, already subject of the Court's well-established case-law (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; Kobelyan v. Georgia, no. 40022/05, §§ 17-19, 16 July 2009, and also Kharitonashvili, cited above, § 46), in the circumstances of the case, does not concern an important question of principle, which could justify a further examination of the case.