Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WHITESIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WHITESIDE c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 07.03.1994 - 20357/92

  It is furthermore established that the burden of proving the existence of available and sufficient domestic remedies lies upon the State invoking the rule (cf. Eur. Court. H.R., Deweer judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 15, para. 26, and No. 9013/80, Dec. 11.12.82, D.R. 30 p. 96, at p. 102).

• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 13237/17

  Türkei wegen Haft für Journalisten verurteilt

  This is an issue that should be tested in the courts (see Roseiro Bento v. Portugal (dec.), no. 29288/02, ECHR 2004-XII (extracts); Whiteside v. the United Kingdom, no. 20357/92, Commission decision of 7 March 1994; and Mustafa Avci, cited above, § 65).
• EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 63638/14

  POSEVINI v. BULGARIA

  One such situation is when the domestic courts have given conflicting rulings (see Whiteside v. the United Kingdom, no. 20357/92, Commission decision of 7 March 1994, Decisions and Reports 76-A, p. 80), as opposed to a consistent line of adverse precedents (see, among other authorities, Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, 29 October 1992, § 50, Series A no. 246-A; Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 39, Series A no. 290; and Colon v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 49458/06, § 56, 15 May 2012).
• EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 51359/09

  BALTA c. TURQUIE

  Il s'agit là d'un point qui doit être soumis aux tribunaux (Whiteside c. Royaume-Uni, no 20357/92, décision de la Commission du 7 mars 1994, et Roseiro Bento c. Portugal (déc.), no 29288/02, 30 novembre 2004).

 
• EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 13252/17

  AHMET HÜSREV ALTAN v. TURKEY

  This is an issue that should be tested in the courts (see Roseiro Bento v. Portugal (dec.), no. 29288/02, ECHR 2004-XII (extracts); Whiteside v. the United Kingdom, no. 20357/92, Commission decision of 7 March 1994; and Mustafa Avci, cited above, § 65).
• EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 39322/12

  MUSTAFA AVCI c. TURQUIE

  Il s'agit là d'un point qui doit être soumis aux tribunaux (Roseiro Bento c. Portugal (déc.), no 29288/02, CEDH 2004 XII (extraits), Whiteside c. Royaume-Uni, no 20357/92, décision de la Commission du 7 mars 1994, et Demir, décision précitée, § 33).
• EGMR, 31.01.2008 - 8095/02

  RABIA TAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Par ailleurs, les organes de la Convention ont toujours souligné que, le simple fait de nourrir des doutes quant aux perspectives de succès d'un recours donné qui n'est pas de toute évidence voué à l'échec ne constitue pas une raison valable pour justifier la non-utilisation de recours internes (Akdivar et autres, précité, p. 1212, § 71 ; voir aussi Brusco c. Italie (déc.), no 69789/01, CEDH 2001-IX ; Whiteside c. Royaume-Uni, no 20357/92, décision de la Commission du 7 mars 1994, Décisions et rapports (DR) 76, p. 80).
• EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 5044/04

  SVOBODEN ZHELEZNICHARSKI SINDIKAT 'PROMYANA' v. BULGARIA

  In other words, if there are doubts as to the effectiveness of a remedy, the issue must be tested in domestic proceedings (see Whiteside v. the United Kingdom, no. 20357/92, Commission decision of 7 March 1994, Decisions and Reports 76-A, p. 80; Kirilov v. Bulgaria, no. 15158/02, § 46, 22 May 2008; and Kamburov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 14336/05, § 61 in fine, 6 January 2011).
• EKMR, 03.04.1995 - 22680/93

  I.S. v. TURKEY

  A mere doubt as to the prospect of success however is not sufficient to exempt an applicant from submitting a complaint to the competent court (see eg. No. 20357/92, Dec. 7.3.94, D.R. 76-A p. 80).
• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 14549/05

  COLLOREDO MANSFELDOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Moreover, where there is doubt as to the prospects of success in a particular case, the issue should be submitted to the domestic courts for resolution (see Horváth and Vadászi v. Hungary (dec.), no. 2351/06, 9 November 2010 with reference to Roseiro Bento v. Portugal (dec.), no. 29288/02, ECHR 2004-XII (extracts); and also Whiteside v. the United Kingdom, no. 20357/92, Commission decision of 7 March 1994, DR 76, p. 80).
• EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 29800/04

  UPTON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In a common law system, where the courts extend and develop principles through case-law, it is generally incumbent on an aggrieved individual to allow the domestic courts the opportunity to develop existing rights by way of interpretation (see E.N. v. Ireland, no. 18670/91, Commission decision of 1 December 1993, and Whiteside v. the United Kingdom, no. 20357/92, Commission decision of 7 March 1994).
• EKMR, 03.04.1995 - 22276/93

  KARADENIZ v. TURKEY