Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 77056/14, 17236/15, 14023/16 |
Zitiervorschläge
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30. Januar 2018 - 77056/14, 17236/15, 14023/16 (https://dejure.org/2018,20580)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,20580) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SHTOLTS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (11)
- EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99
Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 77056/14
46113/99 and 7 others, § 69, ECHR 2010). - EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 26867/02
GRZINCIC c. SLOVENIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 77056/14
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 that avenue of redress (see Vuckovic and Others, cited above, § 74; see also, among many other authorities, Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 70, 17 September 2009; Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; and Grzincic v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 84, 3 May 2007). - EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98
SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 77056/14
There are several avenues by which this goal can be achieved in Russian law and the Court would not impose any specific option, having regard to the respondent State's discretion to choose the means it will use to comply with the judgment (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII).
- EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03
Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 77056/14
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 that avenue of redress (see Vuckovic and Others, cited above, § 74; see also, among many other authorities, Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 70, 17 September 2009; Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; and Grzincic v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 84, 3 May 2007). - EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 44746/08
BALAN v. MOLDOVA
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 77056/14
Among such exceptions are situations where, following a pilot judgment on the merits in which the Court found a systemic violation of the Convention, the respondent State has made a specific remedy available to redress at domestic level grievances of persons in a similar situation (for an application of this principle to the initial Compensation Act introduced in the wake of the Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) pilot judgment, no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009, see Nagovitsyn and Nalgiyev, cited above, § 40; see also, among other authorities, Demopoulos and Others, cited above, §§ 87-88; Balan v. Moldova (dec.), no. 44746/08, §§ 23-25, 24 January 2012; Latak v. Poland (dec.), no. 52070/08, § 79, 12 October 2010; Stella and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 49169/09, § 41, 16 September 2014; and the recent cases of Muratovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 41698/06, 21 March 2017, and Domján v. Hungary (dec.), no. 5433/17, § 35, 14 November 2017). - EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 77056/14
In accordance with the "generally recognised principles of international law", there may be special circumstances which absolve the applicant from the obligation to exhaust the domestic remedies at his or her disposal (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 75, ECHR 1999-V). - EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01
BRUSCO v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 77056/14
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 that avenue of redress (see Vuckovic and Others, cited above, § 74; see also, among many other authorities, Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 70, 17 September 2009; Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; and Grzincic v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 84, 3 May 2007). - EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 41698/06
MURATOVIC v. SERBIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 77056/14
Among such exceptions are situations where, following a pilot judgment on the merits in which the Court found a systemic violation of the Convention, the respondent State has made a specific remedy available to redress at domestic level grievances of persons in a similar situation (for an application of this principle to the initial Compensation Act introduced in the wake of the Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) pilot judgment, no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009, see Nagovitsyn and Nalgiyev, cited above, § 40; see also, among other authorities, Demopoulos and Others, cited above, §§ 87-88; Balan v. Moldova (dec.), no. 44746/08, §§ 23-25, 24 January 2012; Latak v. Poland (dec.), no. 52070/08, § 79, 12 October 2010; Stella and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 49169/09, § 41, 16 September 2014; and the recent cases of Muratovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 41698/06, 21 March 2017, and Domján v. Hungary (dec.), no. 5433/17, § 35, 14 November 2017). - EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 5433/17
DOMJÁN v. HUNGARY
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 77056/14
Among such exceptions are situations where, following a pilot judgment on the merits in which the Court found a systemic violation of the Convention, the respondent State has made a specific remedy available to redress at domestic level grievances of persons in a similar situation (for an application of this principle to the initial Compensation Act introduced in the wake of the Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) pilot judgment, no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009, see Nagovitsyn and Nalgiyev, cited above, § 40; see also, among other authorities, Demopoulos and Others, cited above, §§ 87-88; Balan v. Moldova (dec.), no. 44746/08, §§ 23-25, 24 January 2012; Latak v. Poland (dec.), no. 52070/08, § 79, 12 October 2010; Stella and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 49169/09, § 41, 16 September 2014; and the recent cases of Muratovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 41698/06, 21 March 2017, and Domján v. Hungary (dec.), no. 5433/17, § 35, 14 November 2017). - EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 49169/09
STELLA ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 77056/14
Among such exceptions are situations where, following a pilot judgment on the merits in which the Court found a systemic violation of the Convention, the respondent State has made a specific remedy available to redress at domestic level grievances of persons in a similar situation (for an application of this principle to the initial Compensation Act introduced in the wake of the Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) pilot judgment, no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009, see Nagovitsyn and Nalgiyev, cited above, § 40; see also, among other authorities, Demopoulos and Others, cited above, §§ 87-88; Balan v. Moldova (dec.), no. 44746/08, §§ 23-25, 24 January 2012; Latak v. Poland (dec.), no. 52070/08, § 79, 12 October 2010; Stella and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 49169/09, § 41, 16 September 2014; and the recent cases of Muratovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 41698/06, 21 March 2017, and Domján v. Hungary (dec.), no. 5433/17, § 35, 14 November 2017). - EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 52070/08
LATAK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 14.04.2022 - 60699/11
BESEDA v. RUSSIA
The Court has found that the amended Compensation Act in principle meets the criteria set out in the Gerasimov and Others pilot judgment and provides the applicants with a potentially effective remedy for their non-enforcement complaint (see Shtolts and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos.77056/14 and 2 others, §§ 87-116 and § 123, 30 January 2018). - EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 7896/15
OOO SK STROYKOMPLEKS ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE
Désormais, elle contient des dispositions qui étendent sa portée aux affaires relatives à la non-exécution de jugements internes imposant des obligations en nature à diverses autorités nationales (voir, pour plus de détails, Shtolts et autres c. Russie (déc.), nos 77056/14, 17236/15 et 14023/16, §§ 26 et 31-41, 31 janvier 2018).