Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GERGELY c. ROUMANIE

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. c MRK
  Radiation du rôle (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GERGELY v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. c MRK
  Struck out of the list (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.12.2003 - 57885/00
• EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 57885/00
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 57885/00

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

• EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 64320/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 57885/00

  41138/98 and 64320/01, ECHR 2005-VII (extracts)), one single judgment of this nature could not suffice, bearing in mind the complexity of the matters in issue.

  41138/98 and 64320/01, § 39, 5 July 2005) could not yet be assessed, as the execution of those judgments had just started under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers and was therefore still pending.

• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 53487/99

  MERIAKRI v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 57885/00

  The Court will have to examine carefully the declaration made by the Government in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (as cited above, §§ 75-77); Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005); Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden ((striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006); and Van Houten v. the Netherlands ((striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX).
• EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 25149/03

  Rechtssache V. H. gegen die NIEDERLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 57885/00

  The Court will have to examine carefully the declaration made by the Government in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (as cited above, §§ 75-77); Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005); Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden ((striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006); and Van Houten v. the Netherlands ((striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX).

• EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 7644/04

  CIUL c. ROUMANIE

  Ce seront toutefois les circonstances particulières de la cause qui permettront de déterminer si la déclaration unilatérale offre une base suffisante pour que la Cour conclue que le respect des droits de l'homme garantis par la Convention n'exige pas qu'elle poursuive l'examen de l'affaire (Tahsin Acar c. Turquie (exception préliminaire) [GC], no 26307/95, §§ 75­77, CEDH 2003-VI ; Meriakri c. Moldova (radiation), no 53487/99, 1er mars 2005 ; Kalanyos et autres c. Roumanie, no 57884/00, § 25, 26 avril 2007 ; Gergely c. Roumanie, no 57885/00, § 22, CEDH 2007-22 (extraits) ; et Lück c. Allemagne, no 58364/00, §§ 30-31, 15 mai 2008).
• EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 30159/03

  LAZAR c. ROUMANIE

  Ce seront toutefois les circonstances particulières de la cause qui permettront de déterminer si la déclaration unilatérale offre une base suffisante pour que la Cour conclue que le respect des droits de l'homme garantis par la Convention n'exige pas qu'elle poursuive l'examen de l'affaire (Tahsin Acar c. Turquie (exception préliminaire) [GC], no 26307/95, §§ 75-77, CEDH 2003-VI ; Meriakri c. Moldova (radiation), no 53487/99, 1er mars 2005 ; Kalanyos et autres c. Roumanie, no 57884/00, § 25, 26 avril 2007 ; Gergely c. Roumanie, no 57885/00, § 22, CEDH 2007-22 (extraits) ; et Lück c. Allemagne, no 58364/00, §§ 30-31, 15 mai 2008).
• EGMR, 17.03.2009 - 26104/06

  POPA VALENTIN IUSTIN v. ROMANIA

  To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular Tahsin Acar v. Turkey ([GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005); WAZA Spólka z o.o. v. Poland ((dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007); Gergely v. Romania (no. 57885/00, § 22, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)); and Lazàr v. Romania ((dec.), no. 30159/03, 25 November 2008).

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GERGELY v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 34 MRK
  Admissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.12.2003 - 57885/00
• EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 57885/00
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 57885/00

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 19.02.1998 - 26102/95

  DALIA v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 57885/00

  The existence of the remedies in question must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness; it falls to the respondent State to establish that these various conditions are satisfied (see, inter alia, Vernillo v. France, judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, pp. 11-12, § 27, and Dalia v. France, no. 26102/95, § 38, ECHR 1998-I).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 57885/00

  The Court reiterates that the object of the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies is to allow the national authorities (primarily the judicial authorities) to address the allegations made of violation of a Convention right and, where appropriate, to afford redress before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, 28 April 2004, Kudla v. Poland [GC] no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 18.01.2001 - 27238/95

  CHAPMAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 57885/00

  They added that there was no obligation under the Convention to provide a home for persons who were in a difficult situation, or to carry out an investigation into the alleged violation of the applicant's right to respect for her home that had occurred before the Convention was ratified (see Buckley v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, p. 1271; Chapman v. the United Kingdom, [GC], no. 27238/95, ECHR 2001-I; and M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, 4 December 2003).

 
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 57885/00

  She considered that the extreme poverty and the poor living conditions, and the fact that she had received no compensation for the loss of her personal belongings or the emotional distress caused by the destruction of her home reached the threshold of both Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention (see Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1993, Series A no. 247-C, p. 59, § 30; Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 44, ECHR 2001-II; and Selcuk v. Turkey, judgment of 24 April 1998, Reports 1998-II, p. 909, § 74).
• EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 39272/98

  M.C. c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 57885/00

  They added that there was no obligation under the Convention to provide a home for persons who were in a difficult situation, or to carry out an investigation into the alleged violation of the applicant's right to respect for her home that had occurred before the Convention was ratified (see Buckley v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, p. 1271; Chapman v. the United Kingdom, [GC], no. 27238/95, ECHR 2001-I; and M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, 4 December 2003).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 57885/00

  The applicant claimed that the authorities' failure to conduct a thorough and effective investigation in the instant case resulted, in part, from the fact that the public prosecutors - the officials to whom Romanian law assigned exclusive and unreviewable authority for investigating allegations of crime - lacked sufficient independence and impartiality (she referred to Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61).
• EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 57885/00

  She considered that the extreme poverty and the poor living conditions, and the fact that she had received no compensation for the loss of her personal belongings or the emotional distress caused by the destruction of her home reached the threshold of both Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention (see Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1993, Series A no. 247-C, p. 59, § 30; Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 44, ECHR 2001-II; and Selcuk v. Turkey, judgment of 24 April 1998, Reports 1998-II, p. 909, § 74).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 57885/00

  She relied in this respect on the cases of Moldovan and others and Rostas and others v. Romania ((dec.), no. 41138/98 and 64320/01 joined, 3 June 2003), and Guzzardi v. Italy, (judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, pp. 22-23, §§ 60-63).

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GERGELY v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
  Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.12.2003 - 57885/00
• EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 57885/00
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 57885/00

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2003 - 57885/00

  The applicant submits that the Court is competent ratione temporis to examine her complaints and refers to the jurisprudence of the Court and the Commission, which found themselves competent ratione temporis, if the events taking place before the date of entry into force of the Convention, either constituted a violation continuing after that date, or had effects which themselves constituted a violation after that date (judgments YaÄ?ci and Sargın v. Turkey and Mansur v. Turkey of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A; Loukanov v. Bulgaria decision of 20 March 1997; the Philis v. Greece (no. 2) judgment of 27 June 1997, Reports of Judgements and Decisions 1997-IV).