Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GROF v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GROF c. AUTRICHE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 04.04.1998 - 25046/94
• EKMR, 14.04.1998 - 25046/94

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 82/04

  ENKE v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EKMR, 14.04.1998 - 25046/94

  Die Nachreichung der Ablichtung des ursprünglichen Beschwerdeschriftsatzes, auf welcher keine Unterschrift des einschreitenden Rechtsanwaltes - auch nicht in Ablichtung - aufscheint, kann nicht als Befolgung des Mängelbehebungsauftrages angesehen werden." (B. 17.12.1982, 82/04/0219; B. 12.9.1983, 83/10/212; B. 11.12.1984, 84/04/0188, 0189) quoted after DOLP, Die Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit, 3rd Edition, Vienna 1987, p. 175.

  The mere submission of a photocopy of the writ of complaint, which does not bear the signature of the intervening lawyer - not even in photocopy - cannot be considered as compliance with the court's order to remedy procedural defects." (Decision 17.12.1982, 82/04/0219; Decision 12.9.1983, 83/10/212, 11.12.1984, 84/04/0188, 0189) quoted after DOLP, Die Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit, 3rd Edition, Vienna 1987, p. 175.

• OLG Hamm, 28.04.2004 - 11 WF 103/04

  Beschwerde eines Mandanten über den Prozesskostenhilfebeschluss bei einer eigens …

  Auszug aus EKMR, 14.04.1998 - 25046/94

  Die Nachreichung der Ablichtung des ursprünglichen Beschwerdeschriftsatzes, auf welcher keine Unterschrift des einschreitenden Rechtsanwaltes - auch nicht in Ablichtung - aufscheint, kann nicht als Befolgung des Mängelbehebungsauftrages angesehen werden." (B. 17.12.1982, 82/04/0219; B. 12.9.1983, 83/10/212; B. 11.12.1984, 84/04/0188, 0189) quoted after DOLP, Die Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit, 3rd Edition, Vienna 1987, p. 175.

  The mere submission of a photocopy of the writ of complaint, which does not bear the signature of the intervening lawyer - not even in photocopy - cannot be considered as compliance with the court's order to remedy procedural defects." (Decision 17.12.1982, 82/04/0219; Decision 12.9.1983, 83/10/212, 11.12.1984, 84/04/0188, 0189) quoted after DOLP, Die Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit, 3rd Edition, Vienna 1987, p. 175.

• EKMR, 06.05.1980 - 8407/78

  X. c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 14.04.1998 - 25046/94

  Furthermore the Commission has repeatedly recognised the right of the High Contracting States to make access to courts dependent on the respect by the parties of formal rules relating in particular to the form of their submissions to a court and to time-limits (No. 8407/78, Dec. 6.5.80, D.R. 20, p. 179 with further references).

 
• EKMR, 15.03.1990 - 13202/87

  O.K. ; A.K. v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EKMR, 14.04.1998 - 25046/94

  1 (Art. 6-1) (No. 13202/87, Dec. 15.3.90, unpublished; No. 14452/88, Dec. 3.9.90, unpublished).
• EKMR, 03.09.1990 - 14452/88

  H. v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EKMR, 14.04.1998 - 25046/94

  1 (Art. 6-1) (No. 13202/87, Dec. 15.3.90, unpublished; No. 14452/88, Dec. 3.9.90, unpublished).
• FG Hamburg, 01.06.1999 - I 88/97

  Einkunftserzielungsabsicht: Verpachtungsversuch landwirtschaftlicher Flächen

  Auszug aus EKMR, 14.04.1998 - 25046/94

  By Federal Act of 13 August 1997 the Constitutional Court Act (Verfassungsgerichtshofgesetz), the Administrative Court Act and the Administration Fees Act (Gebührengesetz) were amended (Federal Gazette- I 88/1997).
• EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13126/87

  SEKANINA c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 14.04.1998 - 25046/94

  1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in matters which are not exclusively within the discretion of administrative authorities and where the Administrative Court considers the submissions on their merits, point by point, without ever having to decline jurisdiction in replying to them or ascertaining various facts (Eur. Court HR, Zumtobel v. Austria judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 266-A, pp. 12-13, paras. 31-32; Ortenberg v. Austria judgment of 25 November 1994, Series A no. 295-B, p. 50, paras. 33-34).
• EGMR, 25.11.1994 - 12884/87

  ORTENBERG c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 14.04.1998 - 25046/94

  1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in matters which are not exclusively within the discretion of administrative authorities and where the Administrative Court considers the submissions on their merits, point by point, without ever having to decline jurisdiction in replying to them or ascertaining various facts (Eur. Court HR, Zumtobel v. Austria judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 266-A, pp. 12-13, paras. 31-32; Ortenberg v. Austria judgment of 25 November 1994, Series A no. 295-B, p. 50, paras. 33-34).
• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13023/87

  SALESI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 14.04.1998 - 25046/94

  1 (Art. 6-1) applies in the field of social insurance, including even welfare assistance, insofar as the person concerned claims an individual economic right flowing from specific rules laid down in a statute (Eur. Court HR, Salesi v. Italy judgment of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-E, p. 59, para. 19; Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, p. 17, para. 46).
• EKMR, 10.07.1989 - 13467/87

  J. v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EKMR, 14.04.1998 - 25046/94

  The Commission recalls in this respect that there is no exhaustion of domestic remedies as required by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention when an appeal has been rejected because of a procedural mistake by the applicant (see No. 13467/87, Dec. 10.7.89, D.R. 62, p. 269; No. 18079/91, Dec. 4.12.91, D.R. 72, p. 263).
• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

  SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EKMR, 04.12.1991 - 18079/91

  T. contre la SUISSE