Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 6005/05 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,2064) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SGAIBA v. ROMANIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 35 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 28.01.2003 - 34763/02
BURG et AUTRES contre la FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 6005/05
Nevertheless, although Article 6 § 1 obliges courts to give reasons for their decisions, it cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, §§ 59 and 61, Series A no. 288, and Burg v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, ECHR 2003-II). - EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 31697/03
BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 6005/05
The Court is aware that, in accordance with its consistent case-law, an application for retrial or similar extraordinary remedies cannot, as a general rule, be taken into account for the purpose of applying Article 35 of the Convention (see Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II). - EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90
VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 6005/05
Nevertheless, although Article 6 § 1 obliges courts to give reasons for their decisions, it cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, §§ 59 and 61, Series A no. 288, and Burg v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, ECHR 2003-II). - EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 6005/05
The Court reiterates that the object of the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies is to allow the national authorities (primarily the judicial authorities) to address allegations that a Convention right has been violated and, where appropriate, to afford redress before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, 28 April 2004, and Kudla v. Poland [GC] no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI). - EGMR, 28.04.2004 - 56679/00
AZINAS c. CHYPRE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 6005/05
The Court reiterates that the object of the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies is to allow the national authorities (primarily the judicial authorities) to address allegations that a Convention right has been violated and, where appropriate, to afford redress before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, 28 April 2004, and Kudla v. Poland [GC] no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI).
- EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 17280/08
A.N. v. LITHUANIA
Furthermore, it is for the State relying on the failure to comply with the six-month time-limit to establish the date the applicant became aware of that decision (see Baghli v. France, no. 34374/97, § 31, ECHR 1999-VIII, and more recently, Sgaiba v. Romania (dec.), no. 6005/05, § 25, 27 January 2015). - EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 51557/08
FLETTER c. ROUMANIE
Au demeurant, elle observe qu'il ressort clairement de la motivation du tribunal départemental que l'argument tiré de la force probante de la demande d'adhésion à la coopérative n'a pas été ignoré par ce tribunal, mais a été écarté sur le fondement d'une disposition légale spécifique, au motif qu'il était insuffisant pour étayer la demande de restitution (voir, a contrario, Vlasia Grigore Vasilescu c. Roumanie, no 60868/00, §§ 41-44, 8 juin 2006, et voir, mutatis mutandis, Stroe c. Roumanie (déc.), no 27064/05, § 23, 24 septembre 2013, et Sgaiba c. Roumanie (déc.), no 6005/05, § 41, 27 janvier 2015).