Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 27471/15, 27288/15, 27751/15, 27779/15, 27790/15, 28156/15, 28418/15, 30893/15, 30906/15, 32933/15, 35780/15, 40646/15, 55066/15   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2018,20737
EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 27471/15, 27288/15, 27751/15, 27779/15, 27790/15, 28156/15, 28418/15, 30893/15, 30906/15, 32933/15, 35780/15, 40646/15, 55066/15 (https://dejure.org/2018,20737)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26.06.2018 - 27471/15, 27288/15, 27751/15, 27779/15, 27790/15, 28156/15, 28418/15, 30893/15, 30906/15, 32933/15, 35780/15, 40646/15, 55066/15 (https://dejure.org/2018,20737)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26. Juni 2018 - 27471/15, 27288/15, 27751/15, 27779/15, 27790/15, 28156/15, 28418/15, 30893/15, 30906/15, 32933/15, 35780/15, 40646/15, 55066/15 (https://dejure.org/2018,20737)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,20737) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

  • EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 38155/02

    STEFANICA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 27471/15
    The obligation to exhaust domestic remedies incumbent on applicants, in respect of the alleged violation of the right to legal certainty, contains two connected aspects: on the one hand, the applicants must have aired a Convention complaint at national level (see Azinas v. Cyprus, GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III; Vuckovic and Others v. Serbia, cited above, § 75; and Perihan and Mezopotamya Basin Yayin A.S. v. Turkey, no. 21377/03, § 47, 21 January 2014), and on the other they must substantiate their complaint with the proper evidence (see Golubovic and Others v. Serbia (dec.), no. 10044/11 et seq., § 43, 17 September 2013, and, mutatis mutandis, Stefanica and Others v. Romania, no. 38155/02, § 35, 2 November 2010).

    24428/03 and 26977/03, §§ 33-36, 27 January 2009; Schwarzkopf and Taussik v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 42162/02, 2 December 2008; Tudor Tudor, cited above, § 31; Stefanica and Others v. Romania, no. 38155/02, § 36, 2 November 2010);.

  • EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 42162/02

    SCHWARZKOPF ET TAUSSIK c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 27471/15
    24428/03 and 26977/03, §§ 33-36, 27 January 2009; Schwarzkopf and Taussik v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 42162/02, 2 December 2008; Tudor Tudor, cited above, § 31; Stefanica and Others v. Romania, no. 38155/02, § 36, 2 November 2010);.
  • EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

    MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 27471/15
    The purpose of Article 35 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 Court (see, for example, Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
  • EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

    CARDOT c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 27471/15
    The Court observes that in accordance with its settled case-law, the failure of an applicant at the domestic level to bring a complaint at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law will cause the application to be declared inadmissible before this Court (see Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200, Károly Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 56665/09, § 42, ECHR 2017).
  • EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 17271/04

    CVETKOVIC v. SERBIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 27471/15
    The Court's assessment of an applicant's obligation to exhaust domestic remedies, including an application for the reopening of proceedings, is normally carried out with reference to the date on which the application was lodged with it (see, for example, Cvetkovic v. Serbia, no. 17271/04, § 41, 10 June 2008).
  • EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 21377/03

    PERIHAN AND MEZOPOTAMYA BASIN YAYIN A.S. v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 27471/15
    The obligation to exhaust domestic remedies incumbent on applicants, in respect of the alleged violation of the right to legal certainty, contains two connected aspects: on the one hand, the applicants must have aired a Convention complaint at national level (see Azinas v. Cyprus, GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III; Vuckovic and Others v. Serbia, cited above, § 75; and Perihan and Mezopotamya Basin Yayin A.S. v. Turkey, no. 21377/03, § 47, 21 January 2014), and on the other they must substantiate their complaint with the proper evidence (see Golubovic and Others v. Serbia (dec.), no. 10044/11 et seq., § 43, 17 September 2013, and, mutatis mutandis, Stefanica and Others v. Romania, no. 38155/02, § 35, 2 November 2010).
  • EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 10044/11

    GOLUBOVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 27471/15
    The obligation to exhaust domestic remedies incumbent on applicants, in respect of the alleged violation of the right to legal certainty, contains two connected aspects: on the one hand, the applicants must have aired a Convention complaint at national level (see Azinas v. Cyprus, GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III; Vuckovic and Others v. Serbia, cited above, § 75; and Perihan and Mezopotamya Basin Yayin A.S. v. Turkey, no. 21377/03, § 47, 21 January 2014), and on the other they must substantiate their complaint with the proper evidence (see Golubovic and Others v. Serbia (dec.), no. 10044/11 et seq., § 43, 17 September 2013, and, mutatis mutandis, Stefanica and Others v. Romania, no. 38155/02, § 35, 2 November 2010).
  • EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

    BRUSCO v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 27471/15
    However, this rule is subject to exceptions, which may be justified by the particular circumstances of each case (compare and contrast Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX).
  • EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

    FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 27471/15
    The Court reiterates that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies normally requires that the complaints intended to be made subsequently in Strasbourg should have been raised before the domestic courts, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in the domestic law (see Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 37, ECHR 1999-I).
  • EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 26944/13

    POPOVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

    In support of their contentions the Government provided domestic case-law and relied, mutatis mutandis, on the Court's decisions adopted in two cases brought against Latvia (Gri?.ankova and Gri?.ankovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 36117/02, ECHR 2003-II (extracts), and Liepajnieks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37586/06, 2 November 2010) and on its judgment in Mirkovic and Others v. Serbia (nos. 27471/15 and 12 others, §§ 91, 92, 98-101 and 108-128, 26 June 2018).
  • EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 3409/16

    MAGISTE INTERNATIONAL S.A. c. ITALIE

    Aux yeux de la Cour, l'interprétation de la Cour de cassation n'est pas constitutive d'une violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (voir, a contrario, Mirkovic et autres c. Serbie, nos 27471/15 et 12 autres, §§ 140-42, 26 juin 2018).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht