Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  M.A. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 34 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  M.A. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 34 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (2)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2005 - 35242/04

  The Court reiterates that an individual can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention when the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention and afforded redress (see Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, pp. 30-31, § 66; for the application of this principle in the context of Article 6, see Lüdi v. Switzerland, judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238, p. 18, § 34, and Schlader v. Austria (dec.), no. 31093/96, 7 March 2000).
• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2005 - 35242/04

  The Court reiterates that an individual can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention when the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention and afforded redress (see Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, pp. 30-31, § 66; for the application of this principle in the context of Article 6, see Lüdi v. Switzerland, judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238, p. 18, § 34, and Schlader v. Austria (dec.), no. 31093/96, 7 March 2000).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34661/07

  MUCIBABIC v. SERBIA

  The Court has generally considered this to be dependent on all the circumstances of the case, with particular regard to the nature of the right alleged to have been breached (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 116, ECHR 2010), the reasons given for the decision (see M.A. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 35242/04, ECHR 2005, and contrast with Jensen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X) and the persistence of the unfavourable consequences for the person concerned after that decision (see Freimanis and Līdums v. Latvia, nos. 73443/01 and 74860/01, § 68, 9 February 2006).
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 56065/10

  MILOVANOVIC v. SERBIA

  The Court has generally considered this to be dependent on all the circumstances of the case, with particular regard to the nature of the right alleged to have been breached (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 116, ECHR 2010), the reasons given for the decision (see M.A. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 35242/04, ECHR 2005-VIII, and contrast Jensen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X) and the persistence of the unfavourable consequences for the person concerned after that decision (see Freimanis and Līdums v. Latvia, nos. 73443/01 and 74860/01, § 68, 9 February 2006).
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 15352/11

  NIKOLIC v. SERBIA

  The Court has generally considered this to be dependent on all the circumstances of the case, with particular regard to the nature of the right alleged to have been breached (see Gäfgen, cited above, § 116), the reasons given for the decision (see M.A. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 35242/04, ECHR 2005-VIII, and contrast Jensen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X) and the persistence of the unfavourable consequences for the person concerned after that decision (see Freimanis and Līdums v. Latvia, nos. 73443/01 and 74860/01, § 68, 9 February 2006).

• EGMR, 17.09.2020 - 62439/12

  KOTILAINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  The Court has generally considered this to be dependent on all the circumstances of the case, with particular regard to the nature of the right alleged to have been breached (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 116, ECHR 2010), the reasons given for the decision (see M.A. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 35242/04, ECHR 2005, and contrast Jensen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X) and the persistence of the unfavourable consequences for the person concerned after that decision (see Freimanis and Līdums v. Latvia, nos. 73443/01 and 74860/01, § 68, 9 February 2006).
• EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 69517/11

  MURADYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court has generally considered this to be dependent on all the circumstances of the case, with particular regard to the nature of the right alleged to have been breached (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 116, ECHR 2010), the reasons given for the decision (see M.A. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 35242/04, ECHR 2005-VIII) and the persistence of the unfavourable consequences for the person concerned after that decision (see Freimanis and Lidums v. Latvia, nos. 73443/01 and 74860/01, § 68, 9 February 2006).
• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 38633/08

  [FRE]

  La Cour rappelle qu'une personne ne peut plus se prétendre victime d'une violation de la Convention lorsque les autoriteÌ�s nationales ont reconnu, explicitement ou en substance, puis reÌ�pareÌ�, cette violation (voir, par exemple, Lüdi c. Suisse, 15 juin 1992, § 34, série A no 238 ; M.A. c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 35242/04, 26 avril 2005).
• EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 6368/10

  PERME v. SLOVENIA

  The Court has already held that an applicant could no longer claim to be a victim, despite the fact that no compensation was awarded to him or her at the domestic level, having regard to the circumstances of the case seen as a whole and to non-pecuniary measures which have been taken in amends of the violation complained of (see, notably, Auerbach (dec.), cited above; Goebl v. Hungary (dec.), no. 81097/12, 15 March 2016; Arrigo and Vella v. Malta (dec.), no. 6569/04, 10 May 2005; and M.A. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 35242/04, 26 April 2005).
• EGMR, 12.02.2019 - 62321/13

  MARZECKI v. POLAND

  The nature of the redress which is appropriate and sufficient to remedy a breach of a Convention right at the national level will depend on the circumstances of the case, having regard, in particular, to the nature of the Convention violation at issue (see M.A. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 35242/04, ECHR 2005 VIII; Niedźwiedź v. Poland (dec.), 1345/06, 11 March 2008; and Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 116, ECHR 2010 ).
• EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 60035/12

  ZALOILO v. THE NETHERLANDS

  That being so, and even assuming that an issue could arise under Article 5 of the Convention, the Court is minded to find that the applicant can no longer claim to be a "victim" for purposes of Article 34 of the Convention in this respect (see, among many other authorities, Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI, and M.A. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 35242/04, ECHR 2005-VIII).
• EGMR, 11.03.2008 - 1345/06

  NIEDZWIEDZ v. POLAND

  The Court reiterates that the nature of the redress will depend on the circumstances of the case (see M.A. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 35242/04, ECHR 2005-...).