Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 03.10.2008 - 44574/98, 45133/98, 48316/99 |
Zitiervorschläge
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 03. Oktober 2008 - 44574/98, 45133/98, 48316/99 (https://dejure.org/2008,30806)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,30806) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KOVACIC ET AUTRES c. SLOVENIE
Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 34 MRK
Radiation du rôle (poursuite de l'examen non justifiée) (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KOVACIC AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA
Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 34 MRK
Struck out of the list (continued examination not justified) (englisch) - Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte
(englisch)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)
Kovacic and others v. Slovenia
[14.11.2007]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 44574/98
- EGMR, 06.11.2006 - 44574/98
- EGMR, 03.10.2008 - 44574/98, 45133/98, 48316/99
Wird zitiert von ... (19) Neu Zitiert selbst (10)
- EGMR, 12.12.2001 - 52207/99
V. und B. B., Ž. S., M. S., D. J. und D. S. gegen Belgien, Dänemark, …
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2008 - 44574/98
In addition, relying on the Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and 16 Other Contracting States case ((dec.) [GC] no. 52207/99, ECHR 2001-XII), the respondent Government raised an objection ratione loci with the provisions of the Convention since it was uncontested that the applicants' deposits were made on Croatian territory which was not "within the jurisdiction" of the respondent State. - EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75
DEWEER c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2008 - 44574/98
In its judgment, the Chamber held that Mr Kovacic's and Mrs Golubovic's heirs had standing in the present case to continue the proceedings in their stead (see Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, §§ 37-38, Series A no. 35; Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; and Sobelin and Others v. Russia, nos. - EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78
Eckle ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2008 - 44574/98
However, relying on Eckle v. Germany (15 July 1982, Series A no. 51), Jensen v. Denmark ((dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X) and Kljajic v. Croatia (no. 22681/02, 17 March 2005), they maintained that the applicants were still victims of the alleged violations since, firstly, the enforcement proceedings had not taken place in the respondent State; secondly, no compensation would be awarded to the applicants in relation to the alleged violations; and, thirdly, the authorities of the respondent State would neither expressly nor in substance acknowledge the breach of the Convention in relation to the applicants.
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 34884/97
BOTTAZZI c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2008 - 44574/98
Furthermore, under Rule 60 § 2, itemised particulars of any claim made under Article 41 of the Convention must be submitted, together with the relevant supporting documents or vouchers, failing which the Court may reject the claim in whole or in part (see, among other authorities, ibid., § 133; Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], no. 34884/97, § 30, ECHR 1999-V; and Shevanova v. Latvia, no. 58822/00, § 55, 15 June 2006). - EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93
ILHAN c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2008 - 44574/98
New factual information, even at the merits stage, has led the Court to reconsider a decision to declare an application admissible and subsequently to declare it inadmissible under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see, for example, Medeanu v. Romania (dec.), no. 29958/96, 8 April 2003; Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 52, ECHR 2000-VII; and Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, §§ 37-43, ECHR 2004-III). - EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 33071/96
MALHOUS c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2008 - 44574/98
In its judgment, the Chamber held that Mr Kovacic's and Mrs Golubovic's heirs had standing in the present case to continue the proceedings in their stead (see Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, §§ 37-38, Series A no. 35; Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; and Sobelin and Others v. Russia, nos. - EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 22681/02
KLJAJIC v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2008 - 44574/98
However, relying on Eckle v. Germany (15 July 1982, Series A no. 51), Jensen v. Denmark ((dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X) and Kljajic v. Croatia (no. 22681/02, 17 March 2005), they maintained that the applicants were still victims of the alleged violations since, firstly, the enforcement proceedings had not taken place in the respondent State; secondly, no compensation would be awarded to the applicants in relation to the alleged violations; and, thirdly, the authorities of the respondent State would neither expressly nor in substance acknowledge the breach of the Convention in relation to the applicants. - EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 30672/03
SOBELIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2008 - 44574/98
30672/03 et al., §§ 43-45, 3 May 2007). - EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 25525/03
EL MAJJAOUI AND STICHTING TOUBA MOSKEE v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2008 - 44574/98
The Court reiterates that the general principles governing the reimbursement of costs under Rule 43 § 4 are essentially the same as under Article 41 of the Convention (see, as a recent authority, El Majjaoui and Stichting Touba Moskee v. the Netherlands (striking out) [GC], no. 25525/03, § 39, 20 December 2007). - EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00
D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2008 - 44574/98
The Court reiterates that the "case" referred to the Grand Chamber concerns the application as earlier declared to be admissible (see K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, §§ 140-141, ECHR 2001-VII, and D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 109, 13 November 2007).
- EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 38224/03
Sanoma Uitgevers BV ./. Niederlande
44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99, § 194, ECHR 2008-...). - EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 26828/06
MAKUC AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA
44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99, 9 October 2003). - EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10
KORYAK v. RUSSIA
44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99, §§ 189-192, 3 October 2008), having considered whether or not the persons wishing to pursue the proceedings were the applicant's close relatives (see Thévenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-III, and Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 287) and whether the rights concerned were transferable.
- EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 45293/06
ATMACA v. GERMANY
Darüber hinaus war der Gerichtshof in Bezug auf eine neuere Individualbeschwerde der Auffassung, dass die Umstände die weitere Prüfung der Rechtssache nicht rechtfertigten, da gleichzeitig vor einem Gericht einer Vertragspartei ein Verfahren anhängig war, in dem der Beschwerdeführer versuchte, in Bezug auf denselben Verfahrensgegenstand wie im Individualbeschwerdeverfahren vor dem Gerichtshof Wiedergutmachung zu erlangen (Artikel 37 Abs. 1 Buchstabe c; siehe Kovacic u. a. ./. Slowenien [GK], Individualbeschwerden Nrn. 44574/98, 45133/98 und 48316/99, Rdnr. 267, 3. Oktober 2008). - EGMR, 17.10.2011 - 60642/08
ALISIC AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, CROATIA, SERBIA, SLOVENIA AND
It should be emphasised that such redepositing was as a rule a paper transaction: commercial banks actually transferred to the NBY less than USD 2 billion, but their claims against the NBY arising from that scheme amounted to USD 12 billion (see Kovacic and Others v. Slovenia [GC], nos. 44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99, §§ 36 and 39, ECHR 2008-...; see also decision AP 164/04 of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina of 1 April 2006, § 53). - EGMR, 26.08.2014 - 15028/04
BRUZTTIS v. LATVIA
44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99, §§ 3, 189-192, 189, 3 October 2008). - EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 27912/02
SULJAGIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
It should be underlined, however, that such redepositing was as a rule only a paper transaction, because commercial banks had insufficient liquid funds: it would appear that commercial banks redeposited in total 12.2 billion United States dollars (USD), out of which only USD 1.7 billion (approximately 14%) was actually transferred to the National Bank of Yugoslavia (see Kovacic and Others v. Slovenia [GC], nos. 44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99, §§ 36 and 39, ECHR 2008-...; see also decision AP 164/04 of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina of 1 April 2006, § 53). - EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 57602/09
NASSAU VERZEKERING MAATSCHAPPIJ N.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 70142/01
DUNAYEV v. RUSSIA
44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/98, 9 October 2003 and 1 April 2004). - EGMR, 06.06.2023 - 8243/15
PARTI POLITIQUE 'PATRIA' c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
En tout état de cause, la réparation octroyée ou disponible en droit interne a été l'élément central pour la Cour afin de répondre à cette question (voir, par exemple, Pisano, précité, §§ 45-47, Kovacic et autres c. Slovénie [GC], nos 44574/98 et 2 autres, § 264, 3 octobre 2008, et Knezevic c. Bosnie-Herzégovine (déc.), no 15663/12, §§ 15-16, 14 mars 2017). - EGMR, 23.05.2006 - 71676/01
SARNATSKAYA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.03.2006 - 7412/02
CHERKASHIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 25747/07
ROMANKEVIC v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 44103/06
SABO v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 6008/10
BATANOVIC v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 42453/02
PUPKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.12.2010 - 16510/06
ANGELOV AND ANGELOVA v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 30349/13
K.U. c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 36801/13
T.E. c. SUISSE
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 06.11.2006 - 44574/98, 45133/98, 48316/99 |
Zitiervorschläge
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06. November 2006 - 44574/98, 45133/98, 48316/99 (https://dejure.org/2006,37139)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,37139) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KOVACIC ET AUTRES c. SLOVENIE
Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 43, Art. 41 MRK
Radiation du rôle (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KOVACIC AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA
Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 43, Art. 41 MRK
Struck out of the list (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 44574/98
- EGMR, 06.11.2006 - 44574/98, 45133/98, 48316/99
- EGMR, 03.10.2008 - 44574/98
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 34884/97
BOTTAZZI c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2006 - 44574/98
The Court reiterates that an award can be made to an applicant in respect of costs and expenses only in so far as they have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], no. 34884/97, § 30, ECHR 1999-V). - EGMR, 14.02.2002 - 48470/99
JENSEN v. DENMARK
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2006 - 44574/98
However, relying on Eckle v. Germany (judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 32, §§ 69 et seq.), Jensen v. Denmark ((dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X) and Kljajic v. Croatia (no. 22681/02, § 23, 17 March 2005), they stressed that "an applicant's status as a victim may depend on compensation being awarded at domestic level on the basis of the facts about which he or she complains before the Court and on whether the domestic authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention". - EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 22681/02
KLJAJIC v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2006 - 44574/98
However, relying on Eckle v. Germany (judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 32, §§ 69 et seq.), Jensen v. Denmark ((dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X) and Kljajic v. Croatia (no. 22681/02, § 23, 17 March 2005), they stressed that "an applicant's status as a victim may depend on compensation being awarded at domestic level on the basis of the facts about which he or she complains before the Court and on whether the domestic authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention". - EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78
Eckle ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2006 - 44574/98
However, relying on Eckle v. Germany (judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 32, §§ 69 et seq.), Jensen v. Denmark ((dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X) and Kljajic v. Croatia (no. 22681/02, § 23, 17 March 2005), they stressed that "an applicant's status as a victim may depend on compensation being awarded at domestic level on the basis of the facts about which he or she complains before the Court and on whether the domestic authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention". - EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75
DEWEER c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2006 - 44574/98
In various cases in which an applicant has died in the course of the proceedings the Court has taken into account the statements of the applicant's heirs or of close members of his family who have expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see, for example, Deweer v. Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, pp. 19-20, §§ 37-38, Vocaturo v. Italy, judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 206-C, p. 29, § 2, and Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII).
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 44574/98, 45133/98, 48316/99 |
Zitiervorschläge
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09. Oktober 2003 - 44574/98, 45133/98, 48316/99 (https://dejure.org/2003,41133)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2003,41133) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KOVACIC AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA
Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
Admissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 44574/98, 45133/98, 48316/99
- EGMR, 06.11.2006 - 44574/98
- EGMR, 03.10.2008 - 44574/98
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (8)
- EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97
JECIUS v. LITHUANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 44574/98
The present cases concerned a situation in which the applicants had no effective legal remedy at their disposal with which to challenge the offending statute, and in any event the violation was a continuing one (see De Becker v. Belgium, judgment of 27 March 1962, Series A no. 4, p. 25, § 8, and Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IX). - EGMR, 12.12.2001 - 52207/99
V. und B. B., Ž. S., M. S., D. J. und D. S. gegen Belgien, Dänemark, …
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 44574/98
In Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and 16 Other Contracting States (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, § 61, ECHR 2001-XII, the Court held that the term "within their jurisdiction" in Article 1 of the Convention had to be interpreted to reflect an essentially territorial notion of jurisdiction. - EKMR, 19.01.1989 - 11660/85
J.M. contre le PORTUGAL
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 44574/98
When a situation was continuing, time started to run only when the situation ended and did not run at all for so long as it persisted (see, inter alia, application no. 11660/85, X v. Portugal, DR 59, p. 85).
- EKMR, 08.09.1997 - 30229/96
J. M.F. ET AUTRES contre le PORTUGAL
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 44574/98
From the ratification date onwards, all the State's alleged acts and omissions must conform to the Convention or its Protocols and subsequent facts fall within the Court's jurisdiction even where they are merely extensions of an already existing situation (see, for example, YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, p. 16, § 40, Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal, nos. 29813/96 and 30229/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-I, and Trajkovski v. the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 53320/99, ECHR 2002-IV). - EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90
YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 44574/98
From the ratification date onwards, all the State's alleged acts and omissions must conform to the Convention or its Protocols and subsequent facts fall within the Court's jurisdiction even where they are merely extensions of an already existing situation (see, for example, YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, p. 16, § 40, Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal, nos. 29813/96 and 30229/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-I, and Trajkovski v. the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 53320/99, ECHR 2002-IV). - EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76
GUZZARDI v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 44574/98
In addition, when applying Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the Court often looked behind mere appearances, without excessive regard for matters of form (see, among other authorities, Guzzardi v. Italy, judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, pp. 26-27, § 72). - EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76
VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 44574/98
Moreover, relying on Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, judgment of 6 November 1980 (Series A no. 40, § 35), and Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 16 September 1996 (Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, § 69), the applicants and the Croatian Government argued that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies was neither absolute nor capable of being applied automatically; in examining whether the rule had been observed, it was essential to have regard to the particular circumstances of the individual case. - EGMR, 27.03.1962 - 214/56
DE BECKER c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 44574/98
The present cases concerned a situation in which the applicants had no effective legal remedy at their disposal with which to challenge the offending statute, and in any event the violation was a continuing one (see De Becker v. Belgium, judgment of 27 March 1962, Series A no. 4, p. 25, § 8, and Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IX).
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 03.10.2008 - 45133/98 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,77135) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Wird zitiert von ... (16)
- EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 30474/14
ALI AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND AND ITALY
- EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 26828/06
KURIC ET AUTRES c. SLOVÉNIE
- EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 10511/10
MURRAY c. PAYS-BAS
- EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 40167/06
SARGSYAN c. AZERBAÏDJAN
While the issues raised fall within the Court's jurisdiction as defined in Article 32 of the Convention, it is the responsibility of the two States involved in the conflict to find a political settlement of the conflict (see, mutatis mutandis, Kovacic and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/00, §§ 255-256, 3 October 2008; Demopoulos and Others (cited above, § 85). - EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 17126/02
LIKVIDEJAMA P/S SELGA AND VASILEVSKA v. LATVIA
The Court has reiterated some rules pertaining to State succession in international law in Kuric and Others v. Slovenia ([GC], no. 26828/06, §§ 216-17, ECHR 2012 (extracts)) and Kovacic and Others v. Slovenia ([GC], nos. 44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99, §§ 184-87, 3 October 2008).The Government made a distinction between the present application and the case of Kovacic and Others v. Slovenia (dec.) (nos. 44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99, 9 October 2003).
- EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 35589/08
NAGMETOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 30575/08
IVKO v. RUSSIA
The Court has previously considered similar requests (see, for example, Kovacic and Others v. Slovenia [GC], nos. 44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99, §§ 189-192, 3 October 2008, and Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII), having examined whether or not the persons wishing to pursue the proceedings were close relatives of the applicant (see Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 287, and Thévenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-III) and whether the rights concerned were transferable. - EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 45293/06
ATMACA v. GERMANY
Darüber hinaus war der Gerichtshof in Bezug auf eine neuere Individualbeschwerde der Auffassung, dass die Umstände die weitere Prüfung der Rechtssache nicht rechtfertigten, da gleichzeitig vor einem Gericht einer Vertragspartei ein Verfahren anhängig war, in dem der Beschwerdeführer versuchte, in Bezug auf denselben Verfahrensgegenstand wie im Individualbeschwerdeverfahren vor dem Gerichtshof Wiedergutmachung zu erlangen (Artikel 37 Abs. 1 Buchstabe c; siehe Kovacic u. a. ./. Slowenien [GK], Individualbeschwerden Nrn. 44574/98, 45133/98 und 48316/99, Rdnr. 267, 3. Oktober 2008). - EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 30502/12
LORENZO VÁZQUEZ c. ESPAGNE
Pour pouvoir conclure à l'applicabilité à l'espèce de la disposition précitée, la Cour doit répondre à deux questions successives: elle doit se demander, en premier lieu, si les faits dont l'intéressé se plaint directement persistent ou non, et, en second lieu, si les conséquences qui pourraient résulter d'une éventuelle violation de la Convention à raison de ces faits ont été effacées (Pisano c. Italie (radiation) [GC], no 36732/97, § 42, 24 octobre 2002, Syssoyeva et autres c. Lettonie (radiation) [GC], no 60654/00, § 97, CEDH 2007-I, et Kovacic et autres c. Slovénie [GC], nos 44574/98, 45133/98 et 48316/99, § 263, 3 octobre 2008). - EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 2360/03
ÇIÇEK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 29.09.2015 - 76639/12
BOGUCANIN v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 29.09.2015 - 23404/08
MLADENOVIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 27568/04
OLESHKEVICH v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 2074/11
SAHIN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 26.02.2019 - 15730/17
E.A. c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 33847/11
TELEGRAAF MEDIA NEDERLAND LANDELIJKE MEDIA B.V. AND VAN DER GRAAF v. THE …