Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GÜR AND BEDİR v. TÜRKİYE

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education - general (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GÜR v. TÜRKIYE and 1 other application

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• KAG Mainz, 26.06.2012 - M 21/11

  Eingruppierung; Zustimmungsersetzung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2025 - 58806/18

  21/11/2018.
• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2025 - 58806/18

  Rn. 25 Firstly, as regards the Government's objection that the applicants had applied directly to the Court without recourse to the competent national courts, the Court has frequently underlined the need to apply the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism, given the context of protecting human rights (see Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 89, Series A no. 13; Lehtinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 39076/97, ECHR 1999-VII; and Gherghina v. Romania (dec.) [GC], no. 42219/07, § 87, 9 July 2015).
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2025 - 58806/18

  Rn. 17 The Court reiterates that it is not bound by the legal grounds adduced by an applicant under the Convention and its Protocols, and has the power to decide on the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a complaint by examining it under Articles or provisions of the Convention that are different from those relied upon by the applicant (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 126, 20 March 2018).

• EGMR, 18.09.2015 - 42219/07

  GHERGHINA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2025 - 58806/18

  Rn. 25 Firstly, as regards the Government's objection that the applicants had applied directly to the Court without recourse to the competent national courts, the Court has frequently underlined the need to apply the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism, given the context of protecting human rights (see Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 89, Series A no. 13; Lehtinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 39076/97, ECHR 1999-VII; and Gherghina v. Romania (dec.) [GC], no. 42219/07, § 87, 9 July 2015).
• EGMR, 15.12.2020 - 33399/18

  PISKIN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2025 - 58806/18

  Furthermore, in that judgment, the Court held that the impugned measure could not be regarded as having been strictly required by the particular circumstances of the state of emergency (compare ibid., § 126; see also Pişkin v. Turkey, no. 33399/18, §§ 152, 153 and 229, 15 December 2020).
• EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 56854/13

  STORY v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2025 - 58806/18

  In this regard, the Court reiterates that the speed of the procedure for remedial action may also be relevant in determining whether it is practically effective in the particular circumstances of a given case for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Story and Others v. Malta, no. 56854/13 and 2 others, § 80, 29 October 2015).
• EGMR, 21.03.2023 - 66763/17

  TELEK v. TURKEY and 2 other applications

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2025 - 58806/18

  Rn. 4 The applicants were also among the signatories of the "Academics for Peace" petition (for further background information about the "Academics for Peace" petition, see Telek and Others v. Türkiye, nos. 66763/17 and 2 others, §§ 4-7, 21 March 2023).
• EGMR, 14.10.1999 - 39076/97

  LEHTINEN contre la FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2025 - 58806/18

  Rn. 25 Firstly, as regards the Government's objection that the applicants had applied directly to the Court without recourse to the competent national courts, the Court has frequently underlined the need to apply the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism, given the context of protecting human rights (see Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 89, Series A no. 13; Lehtinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 39076/97, ECHR 1999-VII; and Gherghina v. Romania (dec.) [GC], no. 42219/07, § 87, 9 July 2015).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• SG Karlsruhe, 10.06.2020 - S 13 SF 1259/20

  Sozialgerichtliches Verfahren - Richterablehnung - Selbstablehnung und …

  Die Verfahrensführung im vorliegenden und den vorausgegangenen Parallelverfahren (Az.: S 12 SB 981/19 , S 12 SB 1588/19 , S 12 SB 1642/199, S 12 Sb 2153/19 , S 12 SB 3054/19 und S 12 SB 3113/19 , jeweils zu finden in juris) gebe aus Sicht des Beklagten begründeten Anlass, an der Unvoreingenommenheit und objektiven Einstellung des Kammervorsitzenden der 12. Kammer zu zweifeln.