Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  O'REILLY c. IRLANDE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Partiellement recevable Partiellement irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  O'REILLY v. IRELAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EKMR, 22.01.1996 - 24196/94

  The Commission finds that the applicant was initially entitled to choose which remedy to exhaust and she chose, quite reasonably in the Commission's view, to initiate leave proceedings to take an action against, inter alia, Doctor A on the basis that her essential grievance was the nature of his examination of her (No. 9118/80, Dec. 9.3.83, D.R.32 p. 159 and Eur. Court H.R., Airey judgment dated 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 12, para. 23).
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 22.01.1996 - 24196/94

  However, Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism (see, for example, Eur. Court. H.R., Cardot judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200, p. 18, para. 34) and, in this context, certain special circumstances can, in accordance with the generally recognised rules of international law, absolve an applicant from the obligation to exhaust a domestic remedy (see, for example, No. 14556/89, Dec. 5.3.91, D.R. 69 p. 261).

• EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 35810/09

  O'KEEFFE v. IRELAND

  In other words, when a remedy has been pursued, use of another remedy which has essentially the same objective is not required (O"Reilly v. Ireland, no. 24196/94, Commission decision of 22 January 1996; T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 34, 29 April 1999; Moreira Barbosa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 65681/01, ECHR 2004-V; Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, 15 November 2005; and, more recently, Shkalla v. Albania, no. 26866/05, § 61, 10 May 2011; as well as Leja v. Latvia, no. 71072/01, § 46, 14 June 2011).
• EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 50389/99

  DORAN v. IRELAND

  De plus, même si les requérants avaient pu invoquer dans la procédure au fond un grief tiré de la Constitution à propos des retards déjà survenus (bien que, encore une fois, le Gouvernement ne s'explique pas sur ce point), le Gouvernement ne précise ni sur quelle base l'Etat serait tenu à indemnisation (O'Reilly c. Irlande, no 24196/94, décision de la Commission du 22 janvier 1996, Décisions et rapports 84-B, p. 72), ni comment pareille réparation serait calculée, ni à quel montant les requérants pourraient s'attendre ; or la Cour relève que le caractère approprié d'un recours se définit également en fonction de ce dernier critère (Scordino c. Italie (déc.), no 36813/97, CEDH 2003-IV).