Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JALLOH v. GERMANY

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 13 MRK
  Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• BVerfG, 02.12.1958 - 1 BvR 665/58

  Keine einstweilige Anordnung gegen bereits vollzogene U-Haft

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 54810/00

  According to the Federal Constitutional Court's constant case-law (see, inter alia, BVerfGE 9, 1, 7; BVerfGE 81, 22, 27; BVerfGE 81, 97, 102), the principle of subsidiarity, which emerges from Section 90 § 1, first sentence, obliges the applicant, in addition to his duty to exhaust domestic remedies, to avail himself of all possible means to redress a breach of a fundamental right.
• BVerfG, 03.10.1989 - 1 BvR 1245/88

  Anforderungen an die Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen die Ablehnung einer …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 54810/00

  According to the Federal Constitutional Court's constant case-law (see, inter alia, BVerfGE 9, 1, 7; BVerfGE 81, 22, 27; BVerfGE 81, 97, 102), the principle of subsidiarity, which emerges from Section 90 § 1, first sentence, obliges the applicant, in addition to his duty to exhaust domestic remedies, to avail himself of all possible means to redress a breach of a fundamental right.
• BVerfG, 14.11.1989 - 1 BvR 956/89

  Vorbringen im Zivilprozess

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 54810/00

  According to the Federal Constitutional Court's constant case-law (see, inter alia, BVerfGE 9, 1, 7; BVerfGE 81, 22, 27; BVerfGE 81, 97, 102), the principle of subsidiarity, which emerges from Section 90 § 1, first sentence, obliges the applicant, in addition to his duty to exhaust domestic remedies, to avail himself of all possible means to redress a breach of a fundamental right.

 
• EKMR, 06.07.1989 - 12978/87

  MILLOT contre la SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 54810/00

  The Court's function in this respect is restricted to verifying that the limitations applied do not reduce the access in such a way that the very essence of the right is impaired (see Millot v. Switzerland, no. 12978/87, Commission decision of 6 July 1989; Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, p. 24, § 57).
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 54810/00

  The Court considers that, in so far as the applicant complains about the Constitutional Court's refusal to entertain his constitutional complaint for non-compliance with the principle of subsidiarity, his complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which contains an inherent right of access to a court and is, in this respect, to be considered as constituting a lex specialis in relation to Article 13 of the Convention (see, inter alia, Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, pp. 16-18, §§ 34 et seq.; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 146 et seq., ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 54810/00

  The effectiveness of a remedy within the meaning of Article 13, however, does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see, inter alia, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 42, § 113; Kudla, cited above, § 157).
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 54810/00

  It normally requires also that the complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to those same courts, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see, among other authorities, Cardot v. France, judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200, p. 18, § 34; Janssen v. Germany, no. 23959/94, Commission decision of 9 September 1998; Elçi and Others v. Turkey, nos. 23145/93 and 25091/94, § 604, 13 November 2003).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 54810/00

  The Court's function in this respect is restricted to verifying that the limitations applied do not reduce the access in such a way that the very essence of the right is impaired (see Millot v. Switzerland, no. 12978/87, Commission decision of 6 July 1989; Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, p. 24, § 57).

• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 77909/01

  Polizeigewahrsam und Freiheitsrecht

  Nach der Rechtsprechung der Konventionsorgane ( Janssen ./. Deutschland , Nr. 23959/94, Entscheidung der Kommission vom 9. September 1998 , Uhl ./. Deutschland (Entsch.), Nr. 64387/01, 6. Mai 2004, Storck ./. Deutschland (Entsch.), Nr. 61603/00, 26. Oktober 2004 und Jalloh ./. Deutschland (Entsch.), Nr. 54810/00, 26. Oktober 2004) erachtet der Gerichtshof demnach, dass der Beschwerdeführer seine Rügen substantiell vor dem Bundesverfassungsgericht erhoben und diesem ermöglich hat, die Sache zu würdigen.