Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SIRANCOVA v. SLOVAKIA

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

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

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.09.2004 - 62216/00

  The machinery of complaint to the Court is thus subsidiary to national systems safeguarding human rights (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 57984/00

  ANDRASIK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.09.2004 - 62216/00

  57984/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00, 68563/01, 60226/00, 22 October 2002).
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 45656/99

  CATALDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.09.2004 - 62216/00

  Only when these conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude examination of an application (see Cataldo v. Italy (dec.), no. 45656/99, 3 June 2004, with further references).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 67299/01

  DUBJAKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  In the light of all the material in its possession, including the promptness of the findings and award made by the Constitutional Court in the present case, the Court considers that the sum accorded to the applicant cannot be considered as unreasonable (see Cataldo, cited above, Širancová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 62216/00, 7 September 2004, Eštok v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 63994/00, 28 September 2004 and, a contrario, Scordino v. Italy (dec.), no. 36813/97, 27 March 2003).
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 2343/03

  MAJDANDZIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  In the light of the material in the file and having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the sum awarded to the applicants can be considered sufficient and therefore appropriate redress for the violation suffered (see Cataldo v. Italy (dec.), no. 45656/99, 3 June 2004, Sirancová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 62216/00, 7 September 2004 and Kalajzic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 15382/04, 28 September 2006).
• EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 15382/04

  KALAJZIC v. CROATIA

  In the light of the material in the file and having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the sum awarded to the applicant can be considered sufficient and therefore appropriate redress for the violation suffered (see Cataldo v. Italy, cited above, Sirancová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 62216/00, 7 September 2004, Estok v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 63994/00, 28 September 2004, Dubjaková v. Slovakia (dec.), cited above).

• EGMR, 23.05.2006 - 9545/02

  RUTTKAY AND RUTTKAYOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  The Court however finds no grounds for an assumption that, in this context, the level of just satisfaction awards by the Constitutional Court is generally insufficient (see Sirancová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 62216/00, 7 September 2004, Estok v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 63994/00, 28 September 2004, Dubjaková, cited above and Bako v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 60227/00, 15 March 2005).
• EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 55864/07

  IVAN AND MARTIN MEDIC v. CROATIA

  In the light of the material in the file and having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the sum awarded to the applicants can be considered sufficient and therefore appropriate redress for the violation suffered, in particular in view of the fact that the Constitutional Court's order to the Kastel Luksic Municipal Court was complied with (see Cataldo v. Italy, cited above, Sirancová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 62216/00, 7 September 2004, Estok v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 63994/00, 28 September 2004, Dubjaková v. Slovakia (dec.), cited above).
• EGMR, 28.09.2004 - 63994/00

  ESTOK v. SLOVAKIA

  In the light of all the material in its possession including the promptness of the award made by the Constitutional Court and having regard to the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the national authorities, the Court considers that the sum afforded to the applicant cannot be considered unacceptably low having regard to the Court's practice in similar cases (see Cataldo, cited above, Širancová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 62216/00, 7 September 2004 and, a contrario, Scordino v. Italy (dec.), no. 36813/97, 27 March 2003).