Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SEVDARI v. ALBANIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SEVDARI v. ALBANIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 33771/02

  DRIZA c. ALBANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2022 - 40662/19

  Even assuming that the applicant had an "arguable claim", for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention, in all respects, the Court reiterates that the "authority" referred to in Article 13 does not in all instances need to be a judicial authority in the strict sense (see Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 69, ECHR 2000-V, and Driza v. Albania, no. 33771/02, § 116, ECHR 2007-V (extracts)).
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 39804/06

  LADY S.R.L. c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2022 - 40662/19

  It is for the national courts to assess the relevance of proposed evidence, its probative value and the burden of proof (see Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano, cited above, § 198; Lady S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 39804/06, § 27, 23 October 2018; and Xhoxhaj, cited above, § 325).
• EGMR, 19.03.2002 - 77631/01

  MILOSEVIC v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2022 - 40662/19

  Mere doubts on the part of the applicant regarding the effectiveness of a particular remedy will not absolve him or her from the obligation to try it (see Milosevic v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 77631/01, 19 March 2002; Vuckovic and Others, cited above, §§ 74 and 84; and Zihni v. Turkey (dec.), no. 59061/16, §§ 23 and 30, 29 November 2016).

 
• EGMR, 29.11.2016 - 59061/16

  ZIHNI c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2022 - 40662/19

  Mere doubts on the part of the applicant regarding the effectiveness of a particular remedy will not absolve him or her from the obligation to try it (see Milosevic v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 77631/01, 19 March 2002; Vuckovic and Others, cited above, §§ 74 and 84; and Zihni v. Turkey (dec.), no. 59061/16, §§ 23 and 30, 29 November 2016).
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

  MAESTRI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2022 - 40662/19

  The Court refers to its well-established case-law regarding the conditions for a measure to be "in accordance with the law", including, in particular, the requirement of foreseeability, that is to say that the law in question must set forth with sufficient precision the conditions under which the measure may be applied (see, inter alia, Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I, and Fernández Martínez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, § 117, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 12323/11

  MICHAUD v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2022 - 40662/19

  The Court refers to the requirements laid down in its case-law for an applicant to be able to claim to be a victim of a violation of a Convention right within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see, inter alia, Tanase v. Moldova [GC], no. 7/08, § 104, ECHR 2010, with further references, and Michaud v. France, no. 12323/11, § 51, ECHR 2012).

• EGMR - 23101/20 (anhängig)

  MALAJ v. ALBANIA

  The case concerns the applicant's transitional vetting process by the Independent Qualification Commission (IQC) and the Special Appeal Chamber (SAC) (see Xhoxhaj v. Albania, no. 15227/19, 9 February 2021; Besnik Cani v. Albania, no. 37474/20, 4 October 2022; Sevdari v. Albania, no. 40662/19, 13 December 2022; Nikëhasani v. Albania, no. 58997/18, 13 December 2022; and Thanza v. Albania, no. 41047/19, 4 July 2023).

  Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant have an adequate possibility in the SAC proceedings to rebut the Public Commissioner's grounds of appeal in compliance with the principle of adversarial proceedings (compare with Sevdari v. Albania, no. 40662/19, §§ 120-23, 13 December 2022, and Thanza v. Albania, no. 41047/19, §§ 97-108, 4 July 2023, with further references)?.

• EGMR, 01.02.2024 - 22431/20

  UGULAVA v. GEORGIA (No. 2)

  Mere doubts on the part of the applicant regarding the effectiveness of a particular remedy will not absolve him or her from the obligation to try it (see Vuckovic and Others, cited above, §§ 74 and 84; see also Sevdari v. Albania, no. 40662/19, § 107, 13 December 2022).
• EGMR - 18559/20 (anhängig)

  ZAGANJORI v. ALBANIA

  The case concerns the transitional vetting process by the Independent Qualification Commission (IQC) and the Special Appeal Chamber (SAC) (see Xhoxhaj v. Albania, no. 15227/19, 9 February 2021; Besnik Cani v. Albania, no. 37474/20, 4 October 2022; Sevdari v. Albania, no. 40662/19, 13 December 2022; Nikëhasani v. Albania, no. 58997/18, 13 December 2022; and Thanza v. Albania, no. 41047/19, 4 July 2023).
• EGMR - 57935/18 (anhängig)

  BROCI v. ALBANIA and 2 other applications

  The applicants, Supreme Court judges, were dismissed from office on account of the findings on the assessment of assets and conflict of interest (application no. 57935/18), or on the assessment of assets and the background assessment (applications nos. 34288/19 and 41560/19), within the transitional vetting process by the Independent Qualification Commission (IQC) and the Special Appeal Chamber (SAC) (see Xhoxhaj v. Albania, no. 15227/19, 9 February 2021; Besnik Cani v. Albania, no. 37474/20, 4 October 2022; Sevdari v. Albania, no. 40662/19, 13 December 2022; Nikëhasani v. Albania, no. 58997/18, 13 December 2022; and Thanza v. Albania, no. 41047/19, 4 July 2023).