Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IVINOVIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IVINOVIC v. CROATIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Ivinovic v. Croatia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  IVINOVIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 13006/13
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 13006/13

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTER OF LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CAMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 13006/13

  Furthermore, the Court reiterates that in cases of mentally disabled persons the States have an obligation to ensure that they are afforded independent representation, enabling them to have their Convention complaints examined before a court or other independent body (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 161, 17 July 2014).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 13006/13

  The purpose of Article 35 is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, for example, Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 18064/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 13006/13

  Without requiring a detailed response to each argument presented before a court, this obligation nevertheless presupposes the right of a party to the proceedings to have his or her essential contentions carefully examined (see, mutatis mutanids, Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 29, Series A no. 303-A; Hiro Balani v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 27, Series A no. 303-B; and Novoseletskiy v. Ukraine, no. 47148/99, § 111, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)).

• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 13006/13

  The Court therefore considers, noting that the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies concerns only remedies that relate to the breaches alleged (see De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, § 39, Series A no. 77), that by using all available domestic remedies concerning her complaints in the course of the relevant domestic proceedings, the applicant exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Golubovic v. Croatia, no. 43947/10, § 41, 27 November 2012).
• EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99

  BALOGH v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 13006/13

  To be effective, a remedy must be capable of directly remedying the impugned state of affairs (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 30, 20 July 2004).
• EGMR, 16.10.2006 - 32817/02

  E. W. gegen Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 13006/13

  It follows from these considerations that the Court's task is not to substitute itself for the domestic authorities in the exercise of their responsibilities regarding deprivation of legal capacity, but rather to review, in the light of the Convention, the decisions taken by those authorities in the exercise of their power of appreciation (see, mutatis mutandis, T.P. and K.M. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28945/95, § 71, ECHR 2001-V; Sahin v. Germany [GC], no. 30943/96, § 64, ECHR 2003-VIII; Sommerfeld v. Germany [GC], no. 31871/96, § 62, ECHR 2003-VIII (extracts); Görgülü, cited above, § 41; and Wildgruber v. Germany (dec.), no. 32817/02, 16 October 2006).
• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 33117/02

  LASHIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 13006/13

  The Court reiterates that deprivation of legal capacity may amount to an interference with the private life of the person concerned (see Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 83, ECHR 2008 and Lashin v. Russia, no. 33117/02, § 77, 22 January 2013).
• EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 67149/01

  BERKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 13006/13

  This is so even when a person has been deprived of his or her legal capacity only in part (compare to Berková v. Slovakia, no. 67149/01, § 164, 24 March 2009, and Salontaji-Drobnjak v. Serbia, no. 36500/05, § 144, 13 October 2009).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen