Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ORANGE SLOVENSKO, A.S. v. SLOVAKIA

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 43983/02

  The existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy, which is not obviously futile, is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust domestic remedies (see, for example, Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 40, p. 18, § 37).
• EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 57984/00

  ANDRASIK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 43983/02

  57984/00, 60226/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00 and 68563/01, ECHR 2002-IX).
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 04.04.2003 - 19/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 43983/02

  Apart from that, the Constitutional Court's role is principally limited to examining whether the effects of the ordinary courts" decisions are compatible with the Constitution and applicable international instruments (see, for example, decision of 13 March 2002, file no. I. 19/02).

• LG Mosbach, 25.06.1996 - S 21/96

  Keine nachträglichen Reklamationen möglich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 43983/02

  As a matter of principle, the Constitutional Court has no power to review factual findings and legal conclusions of the ordinary courts (see, for example, decision of 16 May 1996, file no. II. ÚS 21/96) or to scrutinise their interpretation and application of the law (see, for example, decision of 20 August 1998, file no. I. ÚS 52/98).
• RG, 14.02.1898 - 52/98

  Liegt ein die Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand begründender unabwendbarer …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 43983/02

  As a matter of principle, the Constitutional Court has no power to review factual findings and legal conclusions of the ordinary courts (see, for example, decision of 16 May 1996, file no. II. ÚS 21/96) or to scrutinise their interpretation and application of the law (see, for example, decision of 20 August 1998, file no. I. ÚS 52/98).
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 17.05.2002 - 5/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 43983/02

  An examination of a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution cannot entail a review of the constitutionality of legislation (see, for example, decision of 6 February 2002, file no. II. ÚS 5/02).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.12.2024 - 56545/21

  RIBÁR v. SLOVAKIA

  To the extent that any individual decisions are at stake that involved an element of interpretation or application of the applicable law or the exercise of any discretionary power, a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution has been found to constitute a remedy that must be exhausted under the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Orange Slovensko, a.s. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 43983/02, 24 October 2006; also contrast Urbárska Obec Trenčianske Biskupice v. Slovakia, no. 74258/01, §§ 85-86, ECHR 2007-XIII (extracts), as well as, for illustrative purposes, Július Pereszlényi-Servis TV-Video v. Slovakia (dec.) [Committee], no. 25175/15, § 59, 25 May 2021).
• EGMR, 09.02.2023 - 43932/19

  KATONA v. SLOVAKIA

  This is so in particular since, as already noted, the complaint is essentially about the legal provision itself and not about its interpretation or application (see Jenisová v. Slovakia, no. 58764/00, §§ 58-60, 3 November 2009; see also Babylonová v. Slovakia, no. 69146/01, § 44, ECHR 2006-VIII; L.G.R. and A.P.R. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 1349/12, § 55, 13 May 2014, with further references; and contrast Orange Slovensko, a. s. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 43983/02, 24 October 2006).
• EGMR, 25.05.2021 - 25175/15

  JÚLIUS PERESZLÉNYI-SERVIS TV-VIDEO v. SLOVAKIA

  It is in particular the latter aspect of this case that distinguishes it from Orange Slovensko, a. s. v. Slovakia ((dec.), no. 43983/02, 24 October 2006).