Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOKAVECZ v. HUNGARY

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.1999 - 27312/95

  It is primarily for the individual to select which legal remedy to pursue (see, mutatis mutandis, the Airey v. Ireland judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 12, § 23).
• EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10444/83

  LAMY c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.1999 - 27312/95

  It is clear from the case-law of the Convention institutions that such information can be given orally or in writing (see the Lamy v. Belgium judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 151, p. 17, § 31).
• EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13126/87

  SEKANINA c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.1999 - 27312/95

  There is no indication that his acquittal, while being eventually based on a lack of proof, left behind any suspicion as to his innocence or entailed any adverse consequences for him (see the Sekanina v. Austria judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-A, pp. 15-16, § 30).
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.1999 - 27312/95

  The Court recalls that the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them is in principle intended to be afforded to Contracting States by the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see the Cardot v. France judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200, p. 19, § 36).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.1999 - 27312/95

  The Convention leaves to each Contracting State, in the first place, the task of securing the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms it enshrines (see the Eckle v. Germany judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, pp. 30-31, § 66).

• EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 14097/12

  VARGA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  The Court moreover recalls that in the case of Kokavecz v. Hungary ((dec.), no. 27312/95, 20 April 1999), the applicant's complaint about the conditions of his detention was declared inadmissible, since "the applicant has failed to show that in this respect he exhausted the remedies available to him under Hungarian law, notably, the complaint proceedings before either the police and prison or the prosecution authorities.
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 60439/12

  ZIROVNICKÝ c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

  Dans ces circonstances, la Cour considère que le requérant aurait d'abord dû soulever ses griefs relatifs au tabagisme passif et aux mauvaises conditions de détention devant les procureurs compétents (voir, mutatis mutandis, Kokavecz v. Hungary ((déc.), no 27312/95, 20 avril 1999).
• EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 18274/04

  BORZHONOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court also accepts that the interference was in the "general interest" of the community because the charge aimed at anticipating an eventual confiscation of property and securing civil claims of the injured party (see Kokavecz v. Hungary (dec.), no. 27312/95, 20 April 1999, and Földes and Földesné Hajlik v. Hungary, no. 41463/02, § 26, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 68294/01

  KANDZHOV v. BULGARIA

  The Court does not need to resolve the question whether a claim for compensation may be considered as an effective remedy in respect of a deprivation of liberty carried out in breach of Article 5 of the Convention (see De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 May 1984, § 39, Series A no. 77; Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, § 36 in fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III; Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 September 1998, § 63, Reports 1998-VII; Tám v. Slovakia, no. 50213/99, §§ 44-53, 22 June 2004; Andrei Georgiev v. Bulgaria, no. 61507/00, §§ 73-79, 26 July 2007; and Ladent v. Poland, no. 11036/03, § 39, ECHR 2008-... (extracts), which imply that it may be; Kokavecz v. Hungary (dec.), no. 27312/95, 20 April 1999, which says that it is, after the impugned detention has ended; and Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, § 79, Series A no. 241-A; Navarra v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, § 24, Series A no. 273-B; YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, § 44, Series A no. 319-A; Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 90, ECHR 2000-XI; and Haris v. Slovakia, no. 14893/02, § 38, 6 September 2007, which say that it is not, even after the individual concerned has been released).