Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LATVIJAS JAUNO ZEMNIEKU APVIENTBA v. LATVIA

  Art. 13, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 30779/05

  MELNITIS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 14610/05

  The Court refers to the applicable principles on the exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Melnitis v. Latvia, no. 30779/05, § 46, 28 February 2012, and Bazjaks v. Latvia, no. 71572/01, § 85, 19 October 2010).
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 17892/03

  SAVICS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 14610/05

  The obligation to exhaust domestic remedies is, however, limited to making use of those remedies which are likely to be effective and available, meaning that their existence is sufficiently certain and they are capable of directly redressing the alleged violation of the Convention (see Savics v. Latvia, no. 17892/03, § 104, 27 November 2012, and Bazjaks, cited above, § 58).
• EGMR, 13.02.2003 - 36117/02

  GRISANKOVA et GRISANKOVS contre la LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 14610/05

  For the relevant provisions of the Constitutional Court Law (Satversmes tiesas likums), see Grisankova and Grisankovs v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 36117/02, ECHR 2003-II (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 71572/01

  BAZJAKS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 14610/05

  The Court refers to the applicable principles on the exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Melnitis v. Latvia, no. 30779/05, § 46, 28 February 2012, and Bazjaks v. Latvia, no. 71572/01, § 85, 19 October 2010).
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 37586/06

  LIEPAJNIEKS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 14610/05

  An individual constitutional complaint can only be lodged against a legal provision where an individual considers that the provision in question infringes his or her fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution (see Liepajnieks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37586/06, § 73, 2 November 2010, and Grisankova and Grisankovs, cited above).
• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 25769/02

  IVANOVAS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 14610/05

  Referring to Ivanovas v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 25769/02, 04 December 2012), the applicant organisation asserted that its representation in the criminal proceedings had been impossible because of human rights violations committed in those proceedings.

• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 61243/08

  ELBERTE v. LATVIA

  The Court has already examined the scope of the Constitutional Court's review in Latvia (see Grisankova and Grisankovs, cited above; Liepajnieks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37586/06, §§ 73-76, 2 November 2010; Savics v. Latvia, no. 17892/03, §§ 113-117, 27 November 2012; Mihailovs v. Latvia, no. 35939/10, §§ 157-158, 22 January 2013; Nagla v. Latvia, no. 73469/10, § 48, 16 July 2013; and Latvijas jauno zemnieku apvieniba v. Latvia (dec.), no. 14610/05, §§ 44-45, 17 December 2013).
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 4605/05

  PETROVA v. LATVIA

  The Court has already examined the scope of the Constitutional Court's review in Latvia (see Grisankova and Grisankovs, cited above; Liepajnieks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37586/06, §§ 73-76, 2 November 2010; Savics v. Latvia, no. 17892/03, §§ 113-117, 27 November 2012; Mihailovs v. Latvia, no. 35939/10, §§ 157-158, 22 January 2013; Nagla v. Latvia, no. 73469/10, § 48, 16 July 2013; and Latvijas jauno zemnieku apvieniba v. Latvia (dec.), no. 14610/05, §§ 44-45, 17 December 2013).
• EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 45520/04

  LARIONOVS AND TESS v. LATVIA

  The Court has already examined the scope of the Constitutional Court's review in Latvia (see Grisankova and Grisankovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 36117/02, ECHR 2003-II (extracts); Liepajnieks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37586/06, §§ 73-76, 2 November 2010; Savics v. Latvia, no. 17892/03, §§ 113-17, 27 November 2012; Mihailovs v. Latvia, no. 35939/10, §§ 157-58, 22 January 2013; Nagla v. Latvia, no. 73469/10, § 48, 16 July 2013; and Latvijas jauno zemnieku apvieniba v. Latvia (dec.), no. 14610/05, §§ 44-45, 17 December 2013).

 
• EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 22412/08

  EMARS v. LATVIA

  In any event, were the applicant to consider that Article 98 of the Criminal Procedure Law is contrary to his fundamental rights a complaint in that regard to the Constitutional Court would have provided a relevant remedy in the Latvian legal system (see Grisankova and Grisankovs, cited above; Liepajnieks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37586/06, §§ 73-76, 2 November 2010; Savics v. Latvia, no. 17892/03, §§ 113-117, 27 November 2012; Mihailovs v. Latvia, no. 35939/10, §§ 157-158, 22 January 2013; Nagla v. Latvia, no. 73469/10, § 48, 16 July 2013; and Latvijas jauno zemnieku apvieniba v. Latvia (dec.), no. 14610/05, §§ 44-45, 17 December 2013).
• EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 33637/02

  TERNOVSKIS v. LATVIA

  The Court has indeed accepted that this is a remedy for the purposes of the Convention where the applicant calls into question a provision of Latvian legislation or regulations as being contrary, as such, to the Convention, and the right relied on is among those guaranteed by the Latvian Constitution (see, for example, Grisankova and Grisankovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 36117/02, ECHR 2003-II (extracts), and Latvijas Jauno Zemnieku Apvieniba v. Latvia (dec.), no. 14610/05, 17 December 2013, §§ 44-53).Therefore the constitutional proceedings in question are not an example of "misconceived applications to bodies or institutions which have no power or competence to offer effective redress" (see Beiere v. Latvia, no. 30954/05, § 38, 29 November 2011, with further references) and therefore the decision of the Constitutional Court of 23 April 2003 must be considered as the final decision for the purposes of calculating the six-month time-limit.
• EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 3082/06

  TARANEKS v. LATVIA

  The Court has frequently held that an individual complaint to the Constitutional Court is an effective remedy for the purposes of the Convention where the applicant calls into question a provision of Latvian legislation as contrary to the Convention, and the right relied on is among those guaranteed by the Latvian Constitution (see Grisankova and Grisankovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 36117/02, ECHR 2003-II (extracts), and Latvijas Jauno Zemnieku Apvieniba v. Latvia (dec.), no. 14610/05, 17 December 2013, §§ 44-53).