Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  L.G.R. AND A.P.R. v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  L.G.R. AND A.P.R. v. SLOVAKIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 57984/00

  ANDRASIK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 1349/12

  57984/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00, 68563/01 and 60226/00, ECHR 2002-IX; Skurcák v. Slovakia, no. 58708/00, §§ 29-30, 5 December 2006; Supák v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 4973/03, 23 February 2010; Karlin v. Slovakia, no. 41238/05, § 71, 28 June 2011; and many others).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 8014/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 1349/12

  First of all, the Court points out that its task is not to review the relevant domestic law and practice in abstracto, but rather to determine whether the manner in which they were applied to or affected the applicant(s) gave rise to a violation of the Convention or its Protocols (see, Fruni v. Slovakia, no. 8014/07, § 133, 21 June 2011, with further references).
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 30189/07

  ISTVAN AND ISTVANOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 1349/12

  The Court acknowledges that, as the applicants appear to suggest, there have been cases in which, when dealing with individual complaints under Article 127 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court did not provide the complainants with a remedy (see, for example, István and Istvánová v. Slovakia, no. 30189/07, §§ 18 et seq., 12 June 2012; Koky and Others v. Slovakia, no. 13624/03, §§ 112-3, 12 June 2012; and Soltész v. Slovakia, no. 11867/09, § 32, 22 October 2013), or the remedy it provided them with was not sufficient to deprive them of their "victim" status within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention for the purposes of their ensuing complaints to the Court (see, for example, Gajdos v. Slovakia, no. 19304/04, § 19, 23 June 2009; Dvorácek and Dvorácková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, §§ 74-5, 28 July 2009; and Winkler v. Slovakia, no. 25416/07, § 32-3, 17 July 2012).

• EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 30754/04

  DVORACEK AND DVORACKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 1349/12

  The Court acknowledges that, as the applicants appear to suggest, there have been cases in which, when dealing with individual complaints under Article 127 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court did not provide the complainants with a remedy (see, for example, István and Istvánová v. Slovakia, no. 30189/07, §§ 18 et seq., 12 June 2012; Koky and Others v. Slovakia, no. 13624/03, §§ 112-3, 12 June 2012; and Soltész v. Slovakia, no. 11867/09, § 32, 22 October 2013), or the remedy it provided them with was not sufficient to deprive them of their "victim" status within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention for the purposes of their ensuing complaints to the Court (see, for example, Gajdos v. Slovakia, no. 19304/04, § 19, 23 June 2009; Dvorácek and Dvorácková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, §§ 74-5, 28 July 2009; and Winkler v. Slovakia, no. 25416/07, § 32-3, 17 July 2012).
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 74258/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 1349/12

  However, the Court would point out that this position was taken because the respective complaints were directly concerned with the state of the law, coupled with the fact that - under its settled case-law - the Constitutional Court has no power, upon a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution, to review the constitutionality of legislation (see, for example, Babylonová, cited above, §§ 44 and 45; Urbárska Obec Trencianske Biskupice v. Slovakia, no. 74258/01, §§ 85-89, ECHR 2007-XIII (extracts); and Laduna v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 31827/02, 20 October 2010).
• EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 41238/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 1349/12

  57984/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00, 68563/01 and 60226/00, ECHR 2002-IX; Skurcák v. Slovakia, no. 58708/00, §§ 29-30, 5 December 2006; Supák v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 4973/03, 23 February 2010; Karlin v. Slovakia, no. 41238/05, § 71, 28 June 2011; and many others).
• EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 69146/01

  BABYLONOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 1349/12

  In sum, relying on the Court's conclusions as regards the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention by lodging a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution made in its judgment in the case of Babylonová v. Slovakia (no. 69146/01, §§ 44 and 45, ECHR 2006-VIII), the second applicant considered that he had not been required to exhaust the said remedy in the present case.
• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 35090/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 1349/12

  The relevant provisions concerning appeals on points of law are summarised, for example, in the Court's decision in Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia v. Slovakia (no. 35090/07, §§ 65-8, 4 October 2011, with further references).
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 13624/03

  KOKY AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 1349/12

  The Court acknowledges that, as the applicants appear to suggest, there have been cases in which, when dealing with individual complaints under Article 127 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court did not provide the complainants with a remedy (see, for example, István and Istvánová v. Slovakia, no. 30189/07, §§ 18 et seq., 12 June 2012; Koky and Others v. Slovakia, no. 13624/03, §§ 112-3, 12 June 2012; and Soltész v. Slovakia, no. 11867/09, § 32, 22 October 2013), or the remedy it provided them with was not sufficient to deprive them of their "victim" status within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention for the purposes of their ensuing complaints to the Court (see, for example, Gajdos v. Slovakia, no. 19304/04, § 19, 23 June 2009; Dvorácek and Dvorácková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, §§ 74-5, 28 July 2009; and Winkler v. Slovakia, no. 25416/07, § 32-3, 17 July 2012).
• EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 19304/04

  GAJDOS v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 1349/12

  The Court acknowledges that, as the applicants appear to suggest, there have been cases in which, when dealing with individual complaints under Article 127 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court did not provide the complainants with a remedy (see, for example, István and Istvánová v. Slovakia, no. 30189/07, §§ 18 et seq., 12 June 2012; Koky and Others v. Slovakia, no. 13624/03, §§ 112-3, 12 June 2012; and Soltész v. Slovakia, no. 11867/09, § 32, 22 October 2013), or the remedy it provided them with was not sufficient to deprive them of their "victim" status within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention for the purposes of their ensuing complaints to the Court (see, for example, Gajdos v. Slovakia, no. 19304/04, § 19, 23 June 2009; Dvorácek and Dvorácková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, §§ 74-5, 28 July 2009; and Winkler v. Slovakia, no. 25416/07, § 32-3, 17 July 2012).
• EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 25416/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.12.2006 - 58708/00

  SKURCAK v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 4973/03

  SUPAK v. SLOVAKIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 70288/13

  VISY v. SLOVAKIA

  It has been accepted that an individual complaint to the Constitutional Court under Article 127 of the Constitution is a remedy that, in general, has to be exhausted for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, L.G.R. and A.P.R. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 1349/12, § 51, 13 May 2014, with further references).
• EGMR, 12.12.2024 - 56545/21

  RIBÁR v. SLOVAKIA

  On the other hand, in so far as the alleged violation resulted directly from how the law governed the matter in question, the applicants were found not to have any remedy before the Constitutional Court - particularly in view of its established case-law to the effect that private parties had no standing to initiate a review of the constitutionality of legislation (see L.G.R. and A.P.R. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 1349/12, § 55, 13 May 2014, with further references).
• EGMR, 12.11.2019 - 45084/14

  ADAMCO v. SLOVAKIA

  With regard to both, it has not been disputed between the parties that in order to satisfy the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies in relation to the complaint concerning the alleged lack of a hearing by a tribunal established by law, the applicant has to have validly raised this complaint before the Constitutional Court (see, for example, L.G.R. and A.P.R. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 1349/12, § 51, 13 May 2014, with further references).

• EGMR, 19.05.2015 - 71123/13

  DEGRO v. SLOVAKIA

  Exceptions from that requirement have been found only in cases where the alleged violation was directly concerned with the state of the law (see, recently, L.G.R. and A.P.R. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 1349/12, §§ 53 and 55, 13 May 2014).
• EGMR, 09.02.2023 - 43932/19

  KATONA v. SLOVAKIA

  This is so in particular since, as already noted, the complaint is essentially about the legal provision itself and not about its interpretation or application (see Jenisová v. Slovakia, no. 58764/00, §§ 58-60, 3 November 2009; see also Babylonová v. Slovakia, no. 69146/01, § 44, ECHR 2006-VIII; L.G.R. and A.P.R. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 1349/12, § 55, 13 May 2014, with further references; and contrast Orange Slovensko, a. s. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 43983/02, 24 October 2006).
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 35632/13

  HOHOLM v. SLOVAKIA

  Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that since 2002 an individual complaint to the Constitutional Court under Article 127 of the Constitution has been viewed by the Court as a remedy that, in general, must be exhausted for the purposes of satisfying Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of allegedly excessively lengthy proceedings or other alleged procedural or substantive violations of the Convention (see L.G.R. and A.P.R. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 1349/12, §§ 56 and 58, 13 May 2014 as well as López Guió, cited above, § 72).
• EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 60399/15

  MANSOUR v. SLOVAKIA

  In that respect, they relied on the Court's decision in L.G.R. and A.P.R. v. Slovakia (no. 1349/12, 13 May 2014).
• EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 46341/17

  SLOVDAN, SPOL. S R.O. v. SLOVAKIA

  This remedy is in general considered effective for the purposes of the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see L.G.R. and A.P.R. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 1349/12, 13 May 2014).
• EGMR, 25.05.2021 - 25175/15

  JÚLIUS PERESZLÉNYI-SERVIS TV-VIDEO v. SLOVAKIA

  However, to the extent that they could be understood as alleging that the breach of their rights resulted from the way in which the law governed the given matter, they had no remedy at her disposal in that respect since the Constitutional Court considered itself as not having jurisdiction to examine a complaint lodged by natural or legal persons when the determination of the point in issue involved the preliminary question of conflict of legal rules (see Jenisová v. Slovakia, no. 58764/00, §§ 58-60, 3 November 2009; and also Babylonová, cited above, § 44; and L.G.R. and A.P.R. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 1349/12, § 55, 13 May 2014, with further references).
• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 60039/13

  UKROPEC v. SLOVAKIA

  From that perspective, the Court reiterates that it has been accepted that an individual complaint to the Constitutional Court under Article 127 of the Constitution is a remedy that, in general, has to be exhausted for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, L.G.R. and A.P.R. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 1349/12, § 51, 13 May 2014, with further references).