Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WONG c. LUXEMBOURG

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2005 - 38871/02

  Les organes de la Convention ont cependant admis que cette règle générale peut souffrir une exception lorsque les autorités nationales ont, explicitement ou en substance, reconnu puis réparé la violation de la Convention (Eckle c. Allemagne, arrêt du 15 juillet 1982, série A no 51, p. 30, § 66 ; Morby c. Luxembourg (déc.), no 27156/02, CEDH 2003-XI ; Hadjiski et Iliev c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 68454/01 et 68456/01, 2 juin 2005).
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 27156/02

  MORBY contre le LUXEMBOURG

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2005 - 38871/02

  Les organes de la Convention ont cependant admis que cette règle générale peut souffrir une exception lorsque les autorités nationales ont, explicitement ou en substance, reconnu puis réparé la violation de la Convention (Eckle c. Allemagne, arrêt du 15 juillet 1982, série A no 51, p. 30, § 66 ; Morby c. Luxembourg (déc.), no 27156/02, CEDH 2003-XI ; Hadjiski et Iliev c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 68454/01 et 68456/01, 2 juin 2005).
• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 68454/01

  HADJIISKI et ILIEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2005 - 38871/02

  Les organes de la Convention ont cependant admis que cette règle générale peut souffrir une exception lorsque les autorités nationales ont, explicitement ou en substance, reconnu puis réparé la violation de la Convention (Eckle c. Allemagne, arrêt du 15 juillet 1982, série A no 51, p. 30, § 66 ; Morby c. Luxembourg (déc.), no 27156/02, CEDH 2003-XI ; Hadjiski et Iliev c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 68454/01 et 68456/01, 2 juin 2005).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 14146/02

  [ENG]

  It follows that the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see Fedosov v. Russia (dec.), no. 42237/02, 25 January 2007, Hans-Joachim Enders v. Germany, no. 25040/94, Commission decision of 12 April 1996, and, mutatis mutandis, Hajiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 5548/03, 16 June 2005, and Wong v. Luxemburg (dec.), no. 38871/02, 30 August 2005) and that this complaint is to be rejected, pursuant to Articles 34 and 35 §§ 3 and 4.
• EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 44917/08

  [ENG]

  It follows that the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see Hans-Joachim Enders v. Germany, no. 25040/94, Commission decision of 12 April 1996; Fedosov v. Russia (dec.), no. 42237/02, 5 January 2007; and Brinzevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 6822/04, 11 December 2007; and, mutatis mutandis, Hajiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 5548/03, 16 June 2005, and Wong v. Luxemburg (dec.), no. 38871/02, 30 August 2005) and that this complaint is to be rejected, pursuant to Articles 34 and 35 §§ 3 and 4.
• EGMR, 31.01.2008 - 3896/04

  RYABOV v. RUSSIA

  Therefore, having regard to the contents of the Presidium's decision of 1 March 2006 and the appeal judgment of 19 July 2006 which indicated that a new trial should be held, the Court finds that the national authorities have acknowledged, and then afforded redress for, the alleged breach of the Convention (compare Babunidze v. Russia (dec.), no. 3040/03, 15 May 2007; Fedosov v. Russia (dec.), no. 42237/02, 5 January 2007; Nikishina v. Russia (dec.), no. 45665/99, 12 September 2000; and Wong v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 38871/02, 30 August 2005).

• EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 42237/02

  FEDOSOV v. RUSSIA

  It follows that the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (cf. Hans-Joachim Enders v. Germany, no. 25040/94, Commission decision of 12 April 1996, and, mutatis mutandis, Hajiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 5548/03, 16 June 2005 and Wong v. Luxemburg (dec.), no. 38871/02, 30 August 2005) and that this complaint is to be rejected, pursuant to Articles 34 and 35 §§ 3 and 4.
• EGMR, 01.04.2008 - 37041/03

  DAVIDCHUK v. RUSSIA

  Therefore, having regard to the contents of the Presidium's decision of 26 April 2006, the Court finds that the national authorities have acknowledged, and then afforded redress for, the alleged breach of the Convention (compare Babunidze v. Russia (dec.), no. 3040/03, 15 May 2007; Fedosov v. Russia (dec.), no. 42237/02, 5 January 2007; Nikishina v. Russia (dec.), no. 45665/99, 12 September 2000; and Wong v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 38871/02, 30 August 2005).
• EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 6822/04

  BRINZEVICH v. RUSSIA

  Therefore, having regard to the contents of the Presidium's decision of 20 December 2006 and its direction to hold a new appeal hearing with proper respect for the applicant's right to legal assistance, the Court finds that the national authorities have acknowledged, and then afforded redress for, the alleged breach of the Convention (compare Babunidze v. Russia (dec.), no. 3040/03, 15 May 2007; Fedosov v. Russia (dec.), no. 42237/02, 5 January 2007; Nikishina v. Russia (dec.), no. 45665/99, 12 September 2000; and Wong v. Luxemburg (dec.), no. 38871/02, 30 August 2005).