Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 10755/13   

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/2013,9593
EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 10755/13 (https://dejure.org/2013,9593)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30.04.2013 - 10755/13 (https://dejure.org/2013,9593)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30. April 2013 - 10755/13 (https://dejure.org/2013,9593)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,9593) 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 ... (99)

  • EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 5433/17

    DOMJÁN v. HUNGARY

    Indeed, where legal systems provide protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms, it is in principle incumbent on the aggrieved individual to test the extent of that protection and allow the domestic courts to develop those rights by way of interpretation (see Vuckovic and Others, cited above, § 84; for specific applications of this principle, see Köksal v. Turkey (dec.), no. 70478/16, § 28, 6 June 2017; Hasan Uzun v. Turkey (dec.), no. 10755/13, § 69, 30 April 2013; and Sefik Demir v. Turkey (dec.), no. 51770/07, § 32, 16 October 2012, where the Court underlined that when a new legal provision was adopted with the specific aim of creating a remedy capable of redressing the type of complaint brought by the applicant, there was an interest in introducing a case before the domestic courts in order to allow them to apply the provision at issue).

    The Court also points out that it is ready to change its approach as to the potential effectiveness of the remedies in question, should the practice of the domestic authorities show, in the long run, that detainees are being refused relocation and/or compensation on formalistic grounds, that the domestic proceedings are excessively long or that domestic case-law is not in compliance with the requirements of the Convention (see, for example and mutatis mutandis, Bizjak, decision cited above, § 44; Uzun v. Turkey (dec.), no. 10755/13, § 41, 30 April 2013; Muratovic, decision cited above, § 19; and Hodzic, decision cited above, § 22).

  • EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 13237/17

    Türkei wegen Haft für Journalisten verurteilt

    The Government, relying mainly on the Court's findings in Uzun v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 10755/13, 30 April 2013) and Mercan v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 56511/16, 8 November 2016), contended that the applicant had failed to use the remedy of an individual application before the Constitutional Court.

    With regard to an individual application to the Constitutional Court, the Court has already held that it "can see no reason to doubt the legislature's intention - as manifested in the explanatory report on the constitutional amendments... - to ensure identical protection to that provided by the Convention machinery: Law no. 6216 expressly states that the [Turkish Constitutional Court's] jurisdiction ratione materiae covers the fundamental rights and freedoms safeguarded by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Protocols thereto, such rights and freedoms also featuring in the Turkish Constitution itself" (see Uzun v. Turkey (dec.), no. 10755/13, § 62, 30 April 2013).

  • EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 16538/17

    Türkei wegen Haft für Journalisten verurteilt

    The Government, relying mainly on the Court's findings in Uzun v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 10755/13, 30 April 2013) and Mercan v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 56511/16, 8 November 2016), contended that the applicant had failed to use the remedy of an individual application before the Constitutional Court.

    With regard to an individual application to the Constitutional Court, the Court has already held that it "can see no reason to doubt the legislature's intention - as manifested in the explanatory report on the constitutional amendments... - to ensure identical protection to that provided by the Convention machinery: Law no. 6216 expressly states that the [Turkish Constitutional Court's] jurisdiction ratione materiae covers the fundamental rights and freedoms safeguarded by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Protocols thereto, such rights and freedoms also featuring in the Turkish Constitution itself" (see Uzun v. Turkey (dec.), no. 10755/13, § 62, 30 April 2013).

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