Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 17.12.2014

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 15091/06   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2008,64012
EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 15091/06 (https://dejure.org/2008,64012)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08.04.2008 - 15091/06 (https://dejure.org/2008,64012)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08. April 2008 - 15091/06 (https://dejure.org/2008,64012)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,64012) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

  • EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 4856/03

    DUBINSKAYA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 15091/06
    Under Article 6, in order to decide whether the Court has jurisdiction ratione temporis, it is necessary to establish whether, on the date when the Convention entered into force in respect of a Contracting State, the proceedings concerning an applicant were still pending before the domestic courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Dubinskaya v. Russia, no. 4856/03, § 29, 13 July 2006).

    They further referred to the case of Dubinskaya v Russia (no. 4856/03, 13 May 2006).

  • EGMR, 28.04.2004 - 56679/00

    AZINAS c. CHYPRE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 15091/06
    They distinguished their case from that of Azinas v Cyprus ([GC], no. 56679/00, ECHR 2004-III), where the applicant had not relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
  • EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 57001/00

    STRAIN ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 15091/06
    However, bearing in mind that the Government, the only party having the authority and duty to institute these proceedings, waited three years before doing so and having regard also to the various reasons for the numerous adjournments, inter alia, the absence of notifications, which cannot be imputed to the applicants (see Strain and Others v. Romania, no. 57001/00, § 68, ECHR 2005-...), in general terms, the Court considers that the applicants cannot be criticised for lack of diligence in the period before the institution of the proceedings and from the reinstatement of the case to the adoption of the first judgment.
  • EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

    SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 15091/06
    The Court recalls that an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions must strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interests of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights (see, among other authorities, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 26, § 69).
  • EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

    DALBAN v. ROMANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 15091/06
    The Court recalls that in various cases where an applicant died in the course of the proceedings before this Court, it has taken into account the statements of the applicant's heirs or close family members who expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see in this respect Karner, cited above, and Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999-VI).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

    FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 15091/06
    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, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98

    KARNER c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 15091/06
    The existence of a victim of a violation, that is to say, an individual who is personally affected by an alleged violation of a Convention right, is indispensable for putting the protection mechanism of the Convention into motion, although this criterion is not to be applied in a rigid, mechanical and inflexible way throughout the proceedings (see Karner v. Austria, 40016/98, § 25, ECHR 2003-IX).
  • EKMR, 08.09.1997 - 30229/96

    J. M.F. ET AUTRES contre le PORTUGAL

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 15091/06
    From the ratification date onwards, all of the State's alleged acts and omissions must conform to the Convention or its Protocols and subsequent facts fall within the Court's jurisdiction even where they are merely extensions of an already existing situation (see, for example, YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, p. 16, § 40, and see Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal, nos. 29813/96 and 30229/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-I).
  • EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

    YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 15091/06
    From the ratification date onwards, all of the State's alleged acts and omissions must conform to the Convention or its Protocols and subsequent facts fall within the Court's jurisdiction even where they are merely extensions of an already existing situation (see, for example, YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, p. 16, § 40, and see Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal, nos. 29813/96 and 30229/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-I).
  • EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

    HENTRICH v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 15091/06
    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, Hentrich v. France, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, p. 18, § 33, and Remli v. France, judgment of 23 April 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II, p. 571, § 33).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 17.12.2014 - 15091/06   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2014,55781
EGMR, 17.12.2014 - 15091/06 (https://dejure.org/2014,55781)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17.12.2014 - 15091/06 (https://dejure.org/2014,55781)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17. Dezember 2014 - 15091/06 (https://dejure.org/2014,55781)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2014,55781) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    BEZZINA WETTINGER ET AUTRES CONTRE MALTE

    Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    BEZZINA WETTINGER AND OTHERS AGAINST MALTA

    Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht