Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  POPOVSKI v. \

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations Article 8-1 - Respect for ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  POPOVSKI v. \

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  [MKD] Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations Article 8-1 - Respect for ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Popovski v. "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  POPOVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 39270/98

  BELCHEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 12316/07

  That is to say, the applicant must have paid them, or be bound to pay them, pursuant to a legal or contractual obligation, and they must have been unavoidable in order to prevent the violation found or to obtain redress (see Belchev v. Bulgaria, no. 39270/98, § 113, 8 April 2004, and Hajnal v. Serbia, no. 36937/06, § 154, 19 June 2012).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 58148/00

  ÉDITIONS PLON c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 12316/07

  According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum(see Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 64, ECHR 2004-IV).
• EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 36937/06

  HAJNAL v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 12316/07

  That is to say, the applicant must have paid them, or be bound to pay them, pursuant to a legal or contractual obligation, and they must have been unavoidable in order to prevent the violation found or to obtain redress (see Belchev v. Bulgaria, no. 39270/98, § 113, 8 April 2004, and Hajnal v. Serbia, no. 36937/06, § 154, 19 June 2012).

 
• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99

  PEREZ c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 12316/07

  In this connection, they relied on the case of Perez v. France ([GC], no. 47287/99, §§ 67 and 68, ECHR 2004-I) and stated that the proceedings in question had been instituted by the applicant as a private prosecutor; he had not specified his compensation claim as required under section 98(3) of the Criminal Proceedings Act (see paragraph 33 above); and he could have instituted separate civil proceedings for damages, the outcome of which would not have been dependent on the outcome of the criminal proceedings (see paragraph 40 above).
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 45744/08

  JASINSKIS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 12316/07

  In other words, when a remedy has been pursued, use of another remedy, which has essentially the same objective, is not required (see T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 34, 29 April 1999; Moreira Barbosa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 65681/01, ECHR 2004-V; Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, 15 November 2005; and Jasinskis v. Latvia, no. 45744/08, § 50, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 12316/07

  Thus, a complaint intended to be made subsequently to the Court must first have been made - at least in substance - to the appropriate domestic body, and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25644/94

  T.W. v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 12316/07

  In other words, when a remedy has been pursued, use of another remedy, which has essentially the same objective, is not required (see T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 34, 29 April 1999; Moreira Barbosa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 65681/01, ECHR 2004-V; Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, 15 November 2005; and Jasinskis v. Latvia, no. 45744/08, § 50, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 29900/96

  SADAK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 12316/07

  29900/96, 29901/96, 29902/96 and 29903/96, § 67, ECHR 2001-VIII).

• EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 37948/13

  FINE DOO AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  Lastly, although not explicitly argued by the Government, the available case--law in respect of the respondent State suggests that the outcome of the criminal proceedings is not decisive for the prospect of success of the applicants' compensation claim (see, mutatis mutandis, Koceski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), 41107/07, §§ 26-27, 22 October 2013; Popovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 12316/07, § 43, 31 October 2013; Sulejmani v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 74681/11, § 42, 28 April 2016; and Delovski v North Macedonia (dec.), no. 56148/15, § 25, 7 July 2020).
• EGMR, 13.12.2022 - 11811/20

  ELMAZOVA AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  That is to say, the applicant must have paid them, or be bound to pay them, pursuant to a legal or contractual obligation, and they must have been unavoidable in order to prevent the violation found or to obtain redress (see Popovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 12316/07, § 102, 31 October 2013).
• EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 38197/16

  GÜLEN c. TURQUIE

  Elle rappelle aussi que les États contractants jouissent d'une certaine marge d'appréciation quant à la manière de se conformer à l'obligation de prévoir un recours dans le cadre duquel l'instance nationale compétente peut examiner les griefs fondés sur la Convention et ordonner le redressement approprié (Popovski c. l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine, no 12316/07, § 79, 31 octobre 2013).

 
• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 42914/16

  SAYGILI c. TURQUIE

  Elle rappelle encore que les États contractants jouissent d'une certaine marge d'appréciation quant à la manière de se conformer à l'obligation de prévoir un recours dans le cadre duquel l'instance nationale compétente peut examiner les griefs fondés sur la Convention et ordonner le redressement approprié (Popovski c. l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine, no 12316/07, § 79, 31 octobre 2013).
• EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 40825/15

  ALEKSIC v. SERBIA

  This discretion reflects the freedom of choice attaching to the primary obligation of the Contracting States under Article 1 of the Convention to secure the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention (see, Popovski v. "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" no. 12316/07, § 79, 31 October 2013).
• EGMR, 23.03.2023 - 46396/14

  UDOVYCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  That is to say, the applicant must have paid them, or be bound to pay them, pursuant to a legal or contractual obligation, and they must have been unavoidable in order to prevent the violation found or to obtain redress (see Popovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 12316/07, § 102, 31 October 2013).
• EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 30697/19

  SAVCI ÇENGEL c. TURQUIE

  Elle rappelle aussi que les États contractants jouissent d'une certaine marge d'appréciation quant à la manière de se conformer à l'obligation de prévoir un recours dans le cadre duquel l'instance nationale compétente peut examiner les griefs fondés sur la Convention et ordonner le redressement approprié (Popovski c. l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine, no 12316/07, § 79, 31 octobre 2013).