Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  D. v. IRELAND

  Art. 1, Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 10, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Wird zitiert von ... (23)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 30.04.2020 - 72060/17

  KEANEY v. IRELAND

  "The Court recognises the importance, underlined by the Government, of allowing remedies to develop in a constitutional system and, more importantly, in the particular situation of Ireland namely, a common law system with a written Constitution (D. v. Ireland, [no. 26499/02, 27 June 2006]).

  [8] See D. v. Ireland (dec.), no. 26499/02, § 85, 28 June 2006, cited at §§ 120 and 3 of the judgment and separate opinion in McFarlane, cited above, respectively.

• EGMR, 10.09.2013 - 663/11

  NEDYALKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  The point appears an arguable one with sufficient chances of success (see, mutatis mutandis, D. v. Ireland (dec.), no. 26499/02, § 92, 28 June 2006).
• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 1529/10

  [ENG]

  However, it is recalled that a lack of financial means does not absolve an applicant from making some attempt to take legal proceedings (D. v. Ireland, no. 26499/02, (dec.) 28 June 2006).

• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 55120/09

  [ENG]

  According to the Court's case-law, a lack of financial means does not absolve an applicant from making some attempt to take legal proceedings (see D. v. Ireland (dec.) no. 26499/02, 27 June 2006, with reference to Cyprus v. Turkey, ibidem; see also as an example X v. the Federal Republic of Germany (dec.) no. 181/56, Yearbook 1, pp.
• EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 9873/11

  WASIEWSKA v. POLAND

  However, an applicant is not required to use a remedy which, "according to settled legal opinion existing at the relevant time", offers no reasonable prospects of providing redress for his complaint (see D. v. Ireland (dec.), no. 26499/02, §§ 89 and 91, 28 June 2006 and Fox v. the United Kingdom (dec.), § 42).
• EGMR, 27.10.2015 - 76760/12

  N.J.D.B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  However, an applicant is not required to use a remedy which, "according to settled legal opinion existing at the relevant time", offers no reasonable prospects of providing redress for his complaint (see D. v. Ireland (dec.), no. 26499/02, §§ 89 and 91, 28 June 2006; and, more recently, Fox v the United Kingdom (dec.) 61319/09, § 42 20 March 2012).
• EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 14217/10

  STRZELECKA v. POLAND

  However, an applicant is not required to use a remedy which, "according to settled legal opinion existing at the relevant time", offers no reasonable prospects of providing redress for his complaint (see D. v. Ireland (dec.), no. 26499/02, §§ 89 and 91, 28 June 2006 and Fox v. the United Kingdom (dec.), § 42).
• EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 48932/13

  M.B.J. v. NORWAY

  According to the Court's case-law, a lack of financial means does not absolve an applicant from making some attempt to take legal proceedings (see D. v. Ireland (dec.) no. 26499/02, 27 June 2006, with reference to Cyprus v. Turkey, ibidem; see also as an example X v. the Federal Republic of Germany (dec.) no. 181/56, Yearbook 1, pp.
• EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 22669/10

  [ENG]

  According to the Court's case-law, a lack of financial means does not absolve an applicant from making some attempt to take legal proceedings (see D. v. Ireland (dec.) no. 26499/02, 27 June 2006, with reference to Cyprus v. Turkey, ibidem; see also as an example X v. the Federal Republic of Germany (dec.) no. 181/56, Yearbook 1, pp.
• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 181/14

  GADD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  It is an established principle that in a legal system providing constitutional protection for fundamental rights, it is incumbent on the aggrieved individual to test the extent of that protection and, in a common law system, to allow the domestic courts to develop those rights by way of interpretation (see D. v. Ireland (dec.), no. 26499/02, § 85, 28 June 2006).
• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 35752/13

  BAHMANZADEH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 9909/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 27770/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 69558/10

  COURTNEY v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 57440/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 23199/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 59703/13

  ROBERTS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 61319/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 52079/08

  BIRNEY v. IRELAND AND TROY AND BRENNAN v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 74946/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 14079/04

  X. v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 39678/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 8428/09

  BOYCE v. IRELAND