Rechtsprechung
   EKMR, 24.06.1996 - 29526/95   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1996,27065
EKMR, 24.06.1996 - 29526/95 (https://dejure.org/1996,27065)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 24.06.1996 - 29526/95 (https://dejure.org/1996,27065)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 24. Juni 1996 - 29526/95 (https://dejure.org/1996,27065)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1996,27065) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Hinweis zu den Links:
Zu grauen Einträgen liegen derzeit keine weiteren Informationen vor. Sie können diese Links aber nutzen, um die Einträge beispielsweise in Ihre Merkliste aufzunehmen.

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

  • EKMR, 13.05.1976 - 6271/73

    X. v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

    Auszug aus EKMR, 24.06.1996 - 29526/95
    The Commission observes that both an appeal on points of law to the Federal Court of Justice and a constitutional complaint to the Federal Constitutional Court, based on the alleged violation of the right to liberty and the right to equality, as guaranteed by the Basic Law, would have been effective remedies for the purposes of Article 26 (Art. 26) (see, mutatis mutandis, No. 6271/73, Dec. 13.5.76, D.R. 6 p. 62; No. 6830/74, Dec. 16.5.77, D.R. 9 p. 23; No. 8499/79, Dec. 7.10.80, D.R. 21 p. 176; No. 11457/86, Dec. 4.5.87, D.R. 52 p. 236).

    However, the applicant did not argue that there was any case-law in existence at the relevant time to show that the above remedies lacked any prospect of success and were, therefore, pointless (cf., mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court H.R., B. v. France judgment of 25 March 1992, Series A no. 232-C, pp. 46-47, para. 42; No. 6271/73, loc. cit.; No. 9586/82, Dec. 14.5.87, D.R. 52 p. 38).

  • EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

    GUZZARDI v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EKMR, 24.06.1996 - 29526/95
    The Commission observes that Article 26 (Art. 26) must be applied "with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism" (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Guzzardi judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, p. 26, para. 72; Cardot judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200, p. 18, para. 34; Castells judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, p. 19, para. 27).
  • EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10964/84

    BROZICEK v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EKMR, 24.06.1996 - 29526/95
    The Commission recalls that under international law, to which Article 26 (Art. 26) makes express reference, the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies demands the use of such remedies as are available and sufficient and relate to the breaches alleged (see, Eur. Court H.R., Ciulla judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 148, p. 15, para. 31; Brozicek judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 167, pp. 16-17, para. 34).
  • EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

    CASTELLS v. SPAIN

    Auszug aus EKMR, 24.06.1996 - 29526/95
    The Commission observes that Article 26 (Art. 26) must be applied "with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism" (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Guzzardi judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, p. 26, para. 72; Cardot judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200, p. 18, para. 34; Castells judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, p. 19, para. 27).
  • EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11152/84

    CIULLA v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EKMR, 24.06.1996 - 29526/95
    The Commission recalls that under international law, to which Article 26 (Art. 26) makes express reference, the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies demands the use of such remedies as are available and sufficient and relate to the breaches alleged (see, Eur. Court H.R., Ciulla judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 148, p. 15, para. 31; Brozicek judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 167, pp. 16-17, para. 34).
  • EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13343/87

    B. c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EKMR, 24.06.1996 - 29526/95
    However, the applicant did not argue that there was any case-law in existence at the relevant time to show that the above remedies lacked any prospect of success and were, therefore, pointless (cf., mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court H.R., B. v. France judgment of 25 March 1992, Series A no. 232-C, pp. 46-47, para. 42; No. 6271/73, loc. cit.; No. 9586/82, Dec. 14.5.87, D.R. 52 p. 38).
  • EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

    CARDOT c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EKMR, 24.06.1996 - 29526/95
    The Commission observes that Article 26 (Art. 26) must be applied "with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism" (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Guzzardi judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, p. 26, para. 72; Cardot judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200, p. 18, para. 34; Castells judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, p. 19, para. 27).
  • EKMR, 07.10.1980 - 8499/79

    X. v. the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

    Auszug aus EKMR, 24.06.1996 - 29526/95
    The Commission observes that both an appeal on points of law to the Federal Court of Justice and a constitutional complaint to the Federal Constitutional Court, based on the alleged violation of the right to liberty and the right to equality, as guaranteed by the Basic Law, would have been effective remedies for the purposes of Article 26 (Art. 26) (see, mutatis mutandis, No. 6271/73, Dec. 13.5.76, D.R. 6 p. 62; No. 6830/74, Dec. 16.5.77, D.R. 9 p. 23; No. 8499/79, Dec. 7.10.80, D.R. 21 p. 176; No. 11457/86, Dec. 4.5.87, D.R. 52 p. 236).
  • EKMR, 16.05.1977 - 6830/74

    X. v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

    Auszug aus EKMR, 24.06.1996 - 29526/95
    The Commission observes that both an appeal on points of law to the Federal Court of Justice and a constitutional complaint to the Federal Constitutional Court, based on the alleged violation of the right to liberty and the right to equality, as guaranteed by the Basic Law, would have been effective remedies for the purposes of Article 26 (Art. 26) (see, mutatis mutandis, No. 6271/73, Dec. 13.5.76, D.R. 6 p. 62; No. 6830/74, Dec. 16.5.77, D.R. 9 p. 23; No. 8499/79, Dec. 7.10.80, D.R. 21 p. 176; No. 11457/86, Dec. 4.5.87, D.R. 52 p. 236).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht