Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OGIERIAKHI v. IRELAND

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EuGH, 19.11.1991 - C-6/90

  Francovich und Bonifaci / Italien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2019 - 57551/17

  The establishment of such state liability, which is often, as indicated above, referred to as Francovich liability, is dependent on several conditions developed in the case-law of the CJEU being fulfilled, namely: the rule of law which has been infringed must have been intended to confer rights on individuals; the breach must be sufficiently serious; and there must be a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation resting on the State and the damage sustained by the injured parties (see Francovich and Others, C 6/90 and C 9/90, EU:C:1991:428; Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame, cited above; and Dillenkofer and others, joined cases C-178/94, C-179/94, C-188/94, C-189/94 and C-190/94, EU:C:1996:375).
• EuGH, 21.12.2011 - C-424/10

  Der Erwerb des Rechts auf Daueraufenthalt wird nur durch einen Aufenthalt …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2019 - 57551/17

  In Ziolkowski and Szeja v. Land Berlin (C-424/10 and C-425/10, EU:C:2011:866), the CJEU held that Article 16 (1) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that an EU citizen who has been resident for more than five years in the territory of the host Member State on the sole basis of national law of that Member State cannot be regarded as having acquired the right of permanent residence under that provision if, during that period of residence, he did not satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 7 (1) of the directive.
• EuGH, 08.10.1996 - C-178/94

  Dillenkofer u.a. / Bundesrepublik Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2019 - 57551/17

  The establishment of such state liability, which is often, as indicated above, referred to as Francovich liability, is dependent on several conditions developed in the case-law of the CJEU being fulfilled, namely: the rule of law which has been infringed must have been intended to confer rights on individuals; the breach must be sufficiently serious; and there must be a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation resting on the State and the damage sustained by the injured parties (see Francovich and Others, C 6/90 and C 9/90, EU:C:1991:428; Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame, cited above; and Dillenkofer and others, joined cases C-178/94, C-179/94, C-188/94, C-189/94 and C-190/94, EU:C:1996:375).

• EuGH, 21.07.2011 - C-325/09

  Dias - Freizügigkeit - Richtlinie 2004/38/EG - Art. 16 - Recht auf …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2019 - 57551/17

  In the case of Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v. Dias (C-325/09, EU:C:2011:498), the CJEU held that Article 16 (1) and (4) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that periods of residence completed before 30 April 2006 on the basis solely of a residence permit validly issued pursuant to Directive 68/360, without the conditions governing entitlement to any right of residence having been satisfied, cannot be regarded as having been completed legally for the purposes of the acquisition of the right of permanent residence under Article 16 (1) of Directive 2004/38.
• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 3989/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2019 - 57551/17

  Such a refusal may be deemed arbitrary in cases where the applicable rules allow no exception to the granting of a referral or where the refusal is based on reasons other than those provided for by the rules, or where the refusal was not duly reasoned (see Ullens de Schooten and Rezabek v. Belgium, nos. 3989/07 and 38353/07, 20 September 2011, §§ 54-59 and Baydar v. the Netherlands, no. 55385/14, § 39, 24 April 2018).
• EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 65542/12

  STICHTING MOTHERS OF SREBRENICA AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2019 - 57551/17

  The Court recalls that where summary reasoning is employed by a domestic court to refuse a request for a preliminary ruling, this may be sufficient where it follows already from a conclusion reached in another part of the domestic judgment that a request to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling was redundant (Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65542/12, § 173, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 29.06.2012 - 27396/06

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2019 - 57551/17

  As regards the six-month rule, the Court reiterates that it has a number of aims (see, among others, Sabri Güneş v. Turkey [GC], no. 27396/06, §§ 39-42, 29 June 2012).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2019 - 57551/17

  As regards the applicant's complaint under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention, the Court recalls that Article 13 applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).
• EGMR, 24.04.2018 - 55385/14

  BAYDAR v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2019 - 57551/17

  Such a refusal may be deemed arbitrary in cases where the applicable rules allow no exception to the granting of a referral or where the refusal is based on reasons other than those provided for by the rules, or where the refusal was not duly reasoned (see Ullens de Schooten and Rezabek v. Belgium, nos. 3989/07 and 38353/07, 20 September 2011, §§ 54-59 and Baydar v. the Netherlands, no. 55385/14, § 39, 24 April 2018).
• EuGH, 05.03.1996 - C-46/93

  Brasserie du pêcheur / Bundesrepublik Deutschland und The Queen / Secretary of …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2019 - 57551/17

  The principle expressed by the [CJEU] in Brasserie [joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93, EU:C:1996:79] and the earlier and later cases is clear and it goes back to Francovich where it was first expounded.
• EuGH, 07.10.2010 - C-162/09

  Lassal - Vorabentscheidungsersuchen - Freizügigkeit - Richtlinie 2004/38/EG - …
• EuGH, 10.07.2014 - C-244/13

  Ogieriakhi - Vorabentscheidungsersuchen - Richtlinie 2004/38/EG - Art. 16 Abs. 2 …

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.02.2020 - 25137/16

  SANOFI PASTEUR c. FRANCE

  La Cour admet aussi que, in concreto, les raisons de rejet de la demande de question préjudicielle au regard des critères Cilfit puissent se déduire de la motivation du reste de la décision de la juridiction concernée (voir Krikorian c. France (déc.), no 6459/07, §§ 97-99, 26 novembre 2013, Harisch c. Allemagne, no 50053/16, §§ 37-42, 11 avril 2019 et Ogieriakhi c. Irlande (déc.), no 57551/17, § 62, 30 avril 2019) ou de motifs quelque peu implicites indiqués dans la décision rejetant la demande (Repcevirág Szövetkezet c. Hongrie, no 70750/14, §§ 57-58, 30 avril 2019).
• EGMR, 13.05.2025 - 37055/22

  SPITERI v. MALTA

  Rn. 106 The Court also accepts that, in concreto, the reasons for the rejection of the request for a preliminary ruling can be deduced from the reasoning of the remainder of the decision given by the court in question (see Krikorian v. France (dec.), no. 6459/07, §§ 97-99, 26 November 2013; Harisch v. Germany, no. 50053/16, §§ 37-42, 11 April 2019; and, for illustrative purposes, Ogieriakhi v. Ireland (dec.) [Committee], no. 57551/17, § 62, 30 April 2019) or from reasons considered implicit in the decision rejecting the request (see Wind Telecomunicazioni S.p.a. v. Italy (dec.), no. 5159/14, §§ 36-37, 8 September 2015; Repcevirág Szövetkezet v. Hungary, no. 70750/14, §§ 57-58, 30 April 2019; and Silvestri and Others v. Italy (dec.) no. 76571/14 and 13 others, §§ 30-32, 28 June 2022).
• EGMR, 28.06.2022 - 76571/14

  SILVESTRI AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  The Court has already accepted that the reasons for refusing to make a request for preliminary ruling may be inferred from the reasoning of the rest of the judgment (see, for illustrative purposes, Ogieriakhi v. Ireland (dec.) [Committee], no. 57551/17, § 62, 30 April 2019), or from somewhat implicit reasoning in the decision refusing the request (see Repcevirág Szövetkezet v. Hungary, no. 70750/14, §§ 57-58, 30 April 2019, and Wind Telecomunicazioni S.p.a. v. Italy (dec.), no. 5159/14, §§ 36-37, 8 September 2015).
• EGMR, 13.07.2021 - 43639/17

  BIO FARMLAND BETRIEBS S.R.L. c. ROUMANIE

  La Cour admet aussi que, in concreto, les raisons du rejet de la demande de renvoi préjudiciel au regard des critères Cilfit puissent se déduire de la motivation du reste de la décision de la juridiction concernée (Krikorian c. France (déc.), no 6459/07, §§ 97-99, 26 novembre 2013, Harisch c. Allemagne, no 50053/16, §§ 37-42, 11 avril 2019, et Ogieriakhi c. Irlande (déc.), [Comité] no 57551/17, § 62, 30 avril 2019) ou de motifs quelque peu implicites indiqués dans la décision rejetant la demande (Repcevirág Szövetkezet c. Hongrie, no 70750/14, §§ 57-58, 30 avril 2019).