Rechtsprechung
   EKMR, 03.05.1988 - 12860/87   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/1988,15008
EKMR, 03.05.1988 - 12860/87 (https://dejure.org/1988,15008)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 03.05.1988 - 12860/87 (https://dejure.org/1988,15008)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 03. Mai 1988 - 12860/87 (https://dejure.org/1988,15008)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1988,15008) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (18)

  • EGMR, 12.05.2014 - 25781/94

    Türkei muss wegen Besetzung Zyperns Millionen zahlen

    For example, Andersen v. Denmark, no. 12860/87, and Frederiksen and Others v. Denmark, no. 12719/87, Commission decisions of 3 May 1988.
  • EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 67299/01

    DUBJAKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

    The applicant's status as a victim then depends on whether the redress afforded at domestic level on the basis of the facts about which he complains before the Court (see Andersen v. Denmark, no. 12860/87, and Frederiksen and Others v. Denmark, no. 12719/87, Commission decisions of 3 May 1988, unreported; Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; and Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003) was adequate and sufficient having regard to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 36813/97

    SCORDINO et AUTRES (n° 1) contre l'ITALIE

    The Court accordingly considers that an applicant's status as a victim may depend on compensation being awarded at domestic level on the basis of the facts about which he or she complains before the Court (see Andersen v. Denmark, no. 12860/87, and Frederiksen and Others v. Denmark, no. 12719/87, Commission decisions of 3 May 1988; Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; and Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003) and on whether the domestic authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 63214/00

    OHLEN v. DENMARK

    Since the High Court acknowledged the failure to observe the reasonable time requirement, the applicant's status as a victim depends on whether the redress afforded at domestic level on the basis of the facts about which he complains before the Court was adequate and sufficient having regard to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention (see Andersen v. Denmark, no. 12860/87, and Frederiksen and Others v. Denmark, no. 12719/87, Commission decisions of 3 May 1988; Normann v. Denmark (cited above); and Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003).
  • EGMR, 20.03.2003 - 52620/99

    JENSEN and RASMUSSEN v. DENMARK

    The Court notes that an applicant's status as a "victim" within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention may depend on compensation being awarded on the basis of the facts about which he or she complains before the Court (see e.g. Andersen v. Denmark, application no. 12860/87 and Frederiksen and others v. Denmark, application no. 12719/87, both Commission decisions of 3 May 1988) and on condition that the domestic authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the alleged infringement of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 07.07.2005 - 21752/02

    MIHAJLOVIC v. CROATIA

    The Court considers that an applicant's status as a victim may depend on compensation being awarded at domestic level on the basis of the facts about which he or she complains before the Court (see Andersen v. Denmark, no. 12860/87, and Frederiksen and Others v. Denmark, no. 12719/87, Commission decisions of 3 May 1988; Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; and Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003) and on whether the domestic authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 9056/02

    RADANOVIC v. CROATIA

    The Court considers that an applicant's status as a victim may depend on compensation being awarded at domestic level on the basis of the facts about which he or she complains before the Court (see Andersen v. Denmark, no. 12860/87, and Frederiksen and Others v. Denmark, no. 12719/87, Commission decisions of 3 May 1988; Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; and Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003) and on whether the domestic authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 2708/03

    PAPUK TRGOVINA D.D. v. CROATIA

    The Court considers that an applicant's status as a victim may depend on compensation being awarded at domestic level on the basis of the facts about which he or she complains before the Court (see Andersen v. Denmark, no. 12860/87, and Frederiksen and Others v. Denmark, no. 12719/87, Commission decisions of 3 May 1988; Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; and Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003) and on whether the domestic authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 10955/03

    MEZNARIC v. CROATIA (No. 2)

    The Court considers that an applicant's status as a victim may depend on compensation being awarded at domestic level on the basis of the facts about which he or she complains before the Court (see Andersen v. Denmark, no. 12860/87, and Frederiksen and Others v. Denmark, no. 12719/87, Commission decisions of 3 May 1988; Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; and Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003) and on whether the domestic authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 11044/03

    DRAZIC v. CROATIA

    The Court considers that an applicant's status as a victim may depend on compensation being awarded at domestic level on the basis of the facts about which he or she complains before the Court (see Andersen v. Denmark, no. 12860/87, and Frederiksen and Others v. Denmark, no. 12719/87, Commission decisions of 3 May 1988; Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; and Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003) and on whether the domestic authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 01.09.2005 - 22344/02

    KUNIC v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 26.05.2005 - 16787/02

    PEIC v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 28.04.2005 - 26886/02

    URUKALO AND NEMET v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 22857/02

    LULIC AND BECKER v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 22681/02

    KLJAJIC v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 28.09.2004 - 63994/00

    ESTOK v. SLOVAKIA

  • EGMR, 22.09.2005 - 24951/02

    MARINOVIC v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 20.03.2003 - 62560/00

    HOFFMAN KARLSKOV v. DENMARK

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht