Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 30.09.2008 - 21466/03 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,57661) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
DIMITROVSKA v. \
Wird zitiert von ... (3) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 48335/99
SANLES SANLES contre l'ESPAGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2008 - 21466/03
Where the proposed application primarily concerns a complaint under Article 6 of the Convention, as in the present case, the Court interprets the concept of victim autonomously and irrespective of domestic concepts such as those concerning an interest or capacity to act (see Sanles Sanles v. Spain (dec.), no. 48335/99, ECHR 2000-XI). - EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98
KARNER c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2008 - 21466/03
In this connection, it observes that 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). - EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 5977/03
MAKRI ET AUTRES c. GRECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2008 - 21466/03
In Georgia Makri and others v. Greece (dec.), no. 5977/03, 24 March 2005, the Court held that relatives of a deceased person could not be considered victims in respect of complaints concerning, inter alia, Article 6 - length of proceedings - since they had not participated in their own name nor had they intervened as heirs in the domestic proceedings after the direct victim's death.
- EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 4650/06
BAJALDZIEV v.
Under the Court's case-law, the legality review request is not an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention that applicants are required to exhaust (see Trajce Stojanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 1431/03, 16 September 2008 and Dimitrovska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 21466/03, 30 September 2008, in which the public prosecutor rejected the applicants" applications that the legality review request be submitted to the Supreme Court). - EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 30844/06
GALENA VRANISKOSKA v.
The Court decided similarly in the Dimitrovska case (see Dimitrovska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 21466/03, 30 September 2008), which concerned Article 6 complaints (length and fairness) in respect of civil proceedings in which the applicant's late husband was a party. - EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 27865/02
BOCVARSKA v.
In addition, the public prosecutor had full discretion in deciding whether to lodge the legality review request with the Supreme Court (see Lepojic v. Serbia, no. 13909/05, § 54, 6 November 2007, and Dimitrovska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 21466/03, 30 September 2008).