Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PARIZOV v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 13 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (28)Zitiert selbst (16)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 27866/02

  ZIBERI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 14258/03

  In assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account must be taken of the state of proceedings on 10 April 1997 (see Ziberi v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 27866/02, § 41, 5 July 2007).

  The Court considers that the protracted length of the proceedings was due to the repeated re-examination of the case (see Ziberi v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 27866/02, § 46, 5 July 2007).

• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 14258/03

  The existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, ECHR 2002-VIII).

  A compensatory remedy is, without doubt, an appropriate means of redressing a violation that has already occurred (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 187, ECHR 2006; Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 17, 11 September 2002; Kudla, §§ 158 and 159, cited above).

• EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

  BRUSCO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 14258/03

  However, this rule is subject to exceptions, which may be justified by the particular circumstances of each case (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, 22 May 2001 and Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX).

  Finally, unlike Slovenian, Polish and Italian laws which contain transitional provisions concerning cases pending before the Court (see Grzincic v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 48, ECHR 2007; Michalak, § 20, cited above and Brusco v. Italy, (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX), the 2006 Act does not contain a provision which would explicitly bring within the jurisdiction of the national courts all applications pending before the Court irrespective of whether they are still pending at domestic level.

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 14258/03

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 25.11.2003 - 41431/98

  WIERCISZEWSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 14258/03

  However, although the Court is not in a position to analyse the quality of the case-law of the domestic courts, it considers that, since the remittal of cases for re-examination is usually ordered as a result of errors committed by lower courts, the repetition of such orders within one set of proceedings discloses a serious deficiency in the judicial system (see Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, § 51, 6 September 2005; Wierciszewska v. Poland, no. 41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003).
• EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 70767/01

  PAVLYULYNETS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 14258/03

  However, although the Court is not in a position to analyse the quality of the case-law of the domestic courts, it considers that, since the remittal of cases for re-examination is usually ordered as a result of errors committed by lower courts, the repetition of such orders within one set of proceedings discloses a serious deficiency in the judicial system (see Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, § 51, 6 September 2005; Wierciszewska v. Poland, no. 41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003).
• EGMR, 12.04.2001 - 41354/98

  ARVELAKIS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 14258/03

  According to the Court's case-law, an award can be made in respect of costs and expenses only in so far as they have been actually and necessarily incurred by the applicant and are reasonable as to quantum (see Kostovska, cited above, § 62; Arvelakis v. Greece, no. 41354/98, § 34, 12 April 2001; Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 79, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 14258/03

  That rule is based on the assumption, reflected in Article 13 of the Convention - with which it has close affinity - that there is an effective remedy available in respect of the alleged breach in the domestic system (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

  Kokkinakis ./. Griechenland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 14258/03

  Even though the Court accepts that statutes cannot be absolutely precise and that the interpretation and application of such provisions depend on practice (see, mutatis mutandis, Kokkinakis v. Greece, judgment of 25 May 1993, Series A no. 260-A, p. 19, § 40), the fact remains that no court decision has been taken although more than twelve months have elapsed after the introduction of the remedy.
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 14258/03

  The Court reiterates that the purpose of the exhaustion rule, contained in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to it (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96
• EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01

  NOGOLICA c. CROATIE
• EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 57984/00

  ANDRASIK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 24549/03

  MICHALAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 26867/02

  GRZINCIC c. SLOVENIE
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 44353/02

  KOSTOVSKA v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 22205/13

  CALOVSKIS v. LATVIA

  Accordingly, the Court does not award any sum under this head (see Parizov v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", no. 14258/03, § 72, 7 February 2008).
• EGMR, 26.02.2013 - 50254/07

  [ENG]

  It therefore rejects the applicant's claims under all heads (see Parizov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 14258/03, § 72, 7 February 2008).
• EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 28169/08

  [ENG]

  The Court points out that under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court "the applicant must submit itemised particulars of all claims, together with any relevant supporting documents", failing which "the Chamber may reject the claim in whole or in part" (see Parizov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 14258/03, § 71, 7 February 2008).

• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 47997/06

  [ENG]

  Accordingly, it would be disproportionate to require the applicant to make use of this potential avenue of redress (see, mutatis mutandis, Pikic v. Croatia, no. 16552/02, § 31, 18 January 2005; and Parizov v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", no. 14258/03, § 46, 7 February 2008).
• EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 16587/10

  KIISA v. ESTONIA

  Having regard to the fact that in the present case the applicants lodged their applications with the Court on 4 March 2010 and 31 May 2011, after the domestic proceedings had lasted for nearly five and over six years, respectively, the fact that the domestic remedy in question was developed by case-law without any specific transitional provisions concerning cases pending before the Strasbourg Court having been enacted and considering the small number of similar cases in respect of the Contracting Party concerned, the Court considers that there are no particular circumstances in this case to justify departing from the general rule that the assessment of whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is carried out with reference to the date on which the application was lodged with the Court (compare, for example, Parizov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 14258/03, §§ 45-46, 7 February 2008, and Eriksson v. Sweden, no. 60437/08, § 53, 12 April 2012).
• EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 17229/04

  [ENG]

  As the impugned proceedings have been pending domestically for more than eleven years and one month before the introduction of the legislation referred to above and are still not decided, and since no conclusions can be drawn from the Government's submissions about its effectiveness in the particular circumstances of a case like the applicants", the Court considers that it would be unreasonable to require the applicants to try this avenue of redress (see Parizov v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", no. 14258/03, §§ 45-46, 7 February 2008, and Bijelic v. Montenegro and Serbia, no. 11890/05, § 76, 28 April 2009).
• EGMR, 19.09.2013 - 16880/08

  [ENG]

  The Government submitted that the length remedy, as specified in the 2006 Act (see paragraph 42 above), could have been effective in his case, notwithstanding that it had not been regarded as such at the relevant time (see Parizov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 14258/03, 7 February 2008).
• EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 32214/03

  SHANNON v. LATVIA

  The Court points out that under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court "the applicant must submit itemised particulars of all claims, together with any relevant supporting documents failing which the Chamber may reject the claim in whole or in part" (see Parizov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 14258/03, § 71, 7 February 2008).
• EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 12582/03

  SAVOV AND OTHERS v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  Accordingly, the Court does not award any sum under this head (see Parizov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 14258/03, § 72, 7 February 2008).
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 45117/08

  BALAZOSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  The Court points out that under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court "the applicant must submit itemised particulars of all claims, together with any relevant supporting documents, failing which the Chamber may reject the claim in whole or in part" (see Parizov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 14258/03, § 71, 7 February 2008).
• EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 30206/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 26945/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 38914/05

  ADZI-SPIRKOSKA AND OTHERS v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 4650/06

  BAJALDZIEV v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 11890/05

  BIJELIC v. MONTENEGRO AND SERBIA
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 27736/03

  PETKOSKI AND OTHERS v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 4922/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 27865/02

  BOCVARSKA v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 72999/10

  KIISA v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 36815/03

  ATANASOVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 41188/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 19.04.2012 - 26984/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.01.2010 - 31731/03

  JOVANOSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 39538/03

  BLAGE ILIEVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 18.11.2008 - 34112/02

  BAJRAKTAROV v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 31.08.2010 - 36665/03

  SURBANOSKA AND OTHERS v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 31391/03

  KALANOSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 05.11.2009 - 17547/04

  [ENG]