Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ÖHLINGER v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 34 MRK
  Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EKMR, 13.05.1987 - 10668/83

  E. v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1996 - 21444/93

  An applicant can no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25) when the national authorities have acknowledged either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Eckle judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 30, para. 66; De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 20, para. 41; No. 10668/83, Dec. 13.5.87, D.R. 52, p. 177; No. 13020/87, Dec. 13.4.88, D.R. 56 p. 264).

  Such reparation may then constitute a means whereby a State can redress the alleged violation of the Convention (No. 10668/83, Dec. 13.5.87, D.R. 52 p. 177).

• EKMR, 13.04.1988 - 13020/87

  CONRAD c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1996 - 21444/93

  An applicant can no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25) when the national authorities have acknowledged either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Eckle judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 30, para. 66; De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 20, para. 41; No. 10668/83, Dec. 13.5.87, D.R. 52, p. 177; No. 13020/87, Dec. 13.4.88, D.R. 56 p. 264).
• EKMR, 02.03.1987 - 11244/84

  PIROTTE v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1996 - 21444/93

  The Commission recalls however, that the fact that a domestic court is competent to examine proprio motu grounds amounting to a violation of the Convention does not absolve the applicant from the obligation of raising the complaint before the court himself (see No. 11244/84, Dec. 2.3.87, D.R. 55, p. 98).

 
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

  DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1996 - 21444/93

  An applicant can no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25) when the national authorities have acknowledged either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Eckle judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 30, para. 66; De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 20, para. 41; No. 10668/83, Dec. 13.5.87, D.R. 52, p. 177; No. 13020/87, Dec. 13.4.88, D.R. 56 p. 264).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1996 - 21444/93

  An applicant can no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25) when the national authorities have acknowledged either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Eckle judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 30, para. 66; De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 20, para. 41; No. 10668/83, Dec. 13.5.87, D.R. 52, p. 177; No. 13020/87, Dec. 13.4.88, D.R. 56 p. 264).
• EKMR, 13.12.1978 - 8098/77

  X. c. REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1996 - 21444/93

  The arrested person should therefore be informed sufficiently about the facts and the evidence which are proposed to be the foundation of a decision to detain him (No. 8098/77, Dec. 13.12.78, D.R. 16 p. 111).
• EKMR, 06.10.1976 - 7317/75

  LYNAS c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1996 - 21444/93

  4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention as he did not make use in accordance with statutory provisions of the remedy which was available (cf. No. 7317/75, Dec. 6.10.76, D.R. 6 p. 141; Bonazzi v. Italy, Comm. Report 19.3.81, D.R. 24, p. 55, para. 71).

• EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 27765/09

  Italiens Flüchtlingspolitik: Rechte auch auf hoher See

  It points out that the practice of the Court is to strike applications out of the list when an applicant dies during the course of the proceedings and no heir or close relative wishes to pursue the case (see, among other authorities, Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 287; Öhlinger v. Austria, no. 21444/93, Commission Report of 14 January 1997, § 15; Thévenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-III; and Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, § 44, 30 March 2009).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98

  KARNER c. AUTRICHE

  On the other hand, it has been the Court's practice to strike applications out of the list of cases in the absence of any heir or close relative who has expressed the wish to pursue an application (see Scherer v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1994, Series A no 287, pp. 14-15, § 31; Öhlinger v. Austria, no. 21444/93, Commission's report of 14 January 1997, § 15, unreported; Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 47039/11

  HRISTOZOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Conversely, the Court and the former Commission have struck applications out of their lists in situations where the applicants have died in the course of the proceedings and either no one has come forward with a wish to pursue the application (see, for example, Öhlinger v. Austria, no. 21444/93, Commission's report of 14 January 1997, unreported, § 15; Ibish v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 29893/06, 31 January 2011; and Korzhenevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 36799/05, 28 June 2011), or the persons who have expressed such a wish are not heirs or sufficiently close relatives of the applicants, and cannot demonstrate that they have any other legitimate interest in pursuing the application (see Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 287; S.G. v. France (striking out), no. 40669/98, §§ 6 and 16, 18 September 2001; Thévenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-III; Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, §§ 47-51, 30 March 2009; Mitev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 42758/07, 29 June 2010; and Yanchev v. Bulgaria (dec.) [Committee], no. 16403/07, 20 March 2012).

 
• EGMR, 30.03.2009 - 19324/02

  Léger ./. Frankreich

  On the other hand, it has been the Court's practice to strike applications out of the list of cases in the absence of any heir or close relative who has expressed the wish to pursue an application (see, among other authorities, Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 287; Öhlinger v. Austria, no. 21444/93, Commission's report of 14 January 1997, § 15; and Thévenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 16403/07

  YANCHEV v. BULGARIA

  On the other hand, it has been the Court's practice to strike applications out of the list of cases in the absence of any heir or close relative who has expressed the wish to pursue an application and in the absence of any legitimate interest to pursue the proceedings (see, among other authorities, Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 287; Öhlinger v. Austria, no. 21444/93, Commission's report of 14 January 1997, § 15; Thévenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-III and Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, 30 March 2009).
• EGMR, 06.05.2008 - 17613/07

  J.V. c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  A l'inverse, elle a pour pratique de rayer les requêtes du rôle lorsqu'aucun héritier ou parent proche ne veut poursuivre l'instance (Scherer c. Suisse, arrêt du 25 mars 1994, série A no 287, § 31 ; Öhlinger c. Autriche, no 21444/93, rapport de la Commission du 14 janvier 1997, § 15 ; Malhous c. République tchèque (déc.) [GC], no 33071/96, CEDH 2000-XII).