Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SIMANOVICS v. LATVIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SIMANOVICS v. LATVIA

  Art. 3, Art. 34 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (14)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 67299/01

  DUBJAKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 55047/12

  These also include the value of the award judged in the light of the standard of living in the State concerned and the fact that under the national system compensation will in general be awarded and paid more promptly than would be the case if the matter fell to be decided by the Court (see Scordino, cited above, §§ 206 and 268, and Dubjaková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 67299/01, 19 October 2004).
• EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 42119/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 55047/12

  As more recently held by the Court in Firstov v. Russia (no. 42119/04, 20 February 2014), the duration of the applicant's detention and the reasons given by the domestic courts in making an award in respect of that detention are also among the factors to be taken into account in assessing whether the domestic award can be considered as adequate and sufficient redress (§ 33).
• EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99

  Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 55047/12

  46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 and 21819/04, ECHR 2010, § 69).

• EGMR - 10200/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 55047/12

  46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 and 21819/04, ECHR 2010, § 69).
• EGMR - 21819/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 55047/12

  46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 and 21819/04, ECHR 2010, § 69).
• EGMR - 14163/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 55047/12

  46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 and 21819/04, ECHR 2010, § 69).
• EGMR - 19993/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 55047/12

  46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 and 21819/04, ECHR 2010, § 69).
• EGMR - 13466/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 55047/12

  46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 and 21819/04, ECHR 2010, § 69).
• EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 3843/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 55047/12

  46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 and 21819/04, ECHR 2010, § 69).
• EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 30779/05

  MELNITIS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 55047/12

  It provides, among other things, for the right to challenge the actions of public authorities (faktiska riciba) before the administrative courts (see D.F. v. Latvia, no. 11160/07, § 40, 29 October 2013, and Melnitis v. Latvia, no. 30779/05, § 24, 28 February 2012).
• EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 71572/01

  BAZJAKS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 11160/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 1179/10

  ILJINS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 53281/08

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 52902/15

  SAKKAL AND FARES v. TURKEY

  In this connection, the Court notes that in assessing Mr K.A.'s complaints concerning the alleged breaches of Article 19 of the Constitution, which guarantee the right to liberty and security, the Constitutional Court made extensive reference to the relevant case-law of the Court, in particular the judgment of Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey, followed the principles established by the Court and awarded Mr K.A. compensation for non-pecuniary damage which cannot be deemed to be manifestly insufficient (see Hebat Aslan and Firas Aslan v. Turkey, no. 15048/09, § 50, 28 October 2014, and Simanovičs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 55047/12, 18 November 2014).
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 1227/06

  TETYANA GAVRYLOVA AND DENYS GAVRYLOV v. UKRAINEand 4 other applications

  Those considerations include the domestic legal system and legal traditions in the respondent State, the standard of living and the general level of incomes in the State concerned, and the fact that a remedy in the national system is closer and more accessible than one sought through an application to the Court (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 206 and 268, CEDH 2006-V; Dubjaková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 67299/01, 19 October 2004; Firstov, Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119/04, § 31, 20 February 2014; and Simanovičs v. Latvia, no. 55047/12, (dec.), 18 November 2014).
• EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 32454/06

  MINDROVA v. UKRAINE

  Those considerations include the domestic legal system and legal traditions in the respondent State; the standard of living and the general level of incomes in the State concerned; and the fact that a remedy in the national system is closer and more accessible than one sought through an application to the Court (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 206 and 268, CEDH 2006-V; Dubjaková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 67299/01, 19 October 2004; Firstov, cited above, § 31; and Simanovičs v. Latvia, no. 55047/12, (dec.), 18 November 2014).