Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EUGENIA MICHAELIDOU DEVELOPMENTS LTD AND MICHAEL TYMVIOS v. TURKEY

  Art. 1, Art. 8, Art. 13, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 36, Art. 36 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll N... r. 4 Art. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
  Preliminary objections dismissed (ratione temporis ratione loci victim non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of P1-1 Not necessary to examine Art. 14 Not necessary to examine Art. 8 Just satisfaction reserved Costs and expenses award - Convention ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 08.06.1999 - 16163/90
• EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 16163/90
• EGMR, 22.04.2008 - 16163/90

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 11.10.2001 - 51342/99

  Fall K. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 16163/90

  The Court has every interest, for example, in comparing these cases with the situation examined in the cases of Pisano and Kalantari (see Pisano v. Italy [GC] (striking out), no. 36732/97, 24 October 2002; and Kalantari v. Germany (striking out), no. 51342/99, ECHR 2001-X).
• EGMR, 24.10.2002 - 36732/97

  PISANO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 16163/90

  The Court has every interest, for example, in comparing these cases with the situation examined in the cases of Pisano and Kalantari (see Pisano v. Italy [GC] (striking out), no. 36732/97, 24 October 2002; and Kalantari v. Germany (striking out), no. 51342/99, ECHR 2001-X).
• EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

  LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 16163/90

  In any event, and in so far as certain of the Government's objections could be considered to have been raised at the admissibility stage by implication having regard to their pleadings in the Loizidou case (judgments of 23 March 1995, preliminary objections, Series A no. 310 and of 18 December 1996, merits, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI), the Court recalls that the first two objections were duly examined and rejected in the Loizidou v. Turkey case (op. cit.) and in the case of Cyprus v. Turkey ([GC], no. 25781/94, §§ 69-81, ECHR 2001-IV).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 16163/90

  Since the Handyside v. the United Kingdom case (judgment of 17 December 1976, Series A no. 24, § 48), the Court has repeatedly said that the Convention the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights.
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 16163/90

  The Court too has examined the circumstances in which a new domestic remedy or new information may be relied on at an advanced stage in the examination of the merits of a case (see Artico v. Italy, judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 13, § 27).

• EGMR, 22.12.2005 - 46347/99

  XENIDES-ARESTIS v. TURKEY

  La requérante s'appuie sur les conclusions de la Cour dans les arrêts Loizidou c. Turquie ((exceptions préliminaires), arrêt du 23 mars 1995, série A no 310), Loizidou c. Turquie ((fond), arrêt du 18 décembre 1996, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1996-VI), Chypre c. Turquie ([GC], no 25781/94, CEDH 2001-IV), Demades c. Turquie (no 16219/90, § 46, 31 juillet 2003), et Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd et Michael Tymvios c. Turquie (no 16163/90, § 31, 31 juillet 2003).
• EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 39107/18

  MICKOVSKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  In such circumstances, and having regard to the particular nature of a bailiff's office under the relevant domestic law, according to which the legal person is closely linked to a sole individual qualified to practise the profession (see paragraph 17 above), the Court considers that both are so closely identified with each other that it would be artificial to distinguish between them in this context (see, mutatis mutandis, Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios v. Turkey, no. 16163/90, § 21, 31 July 2003; Kin-Stib and Majkic v. Serbia, no. 12312/05, § 74, 20 April 2010; Vujovic and Lipa D.O.O. v. Montenegro, no. 18912/15, § 30, 20 February 2018; and Albert and Others v. Hungary [GC], no. 5294/14, §§ 157-58, 7 July 2020).