Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LEJA v. LATVIA

  Art. 3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 34 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 71072/01

  At the outset, the Court notes that the purpose of the exhaustion rule contained in Article 35 of the Convention is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Convention institutions (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 21906/04

  KAFKARIS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 71072/01

  In this regard, the Court reiterates that Article 14 of the Convention has no independent existence, since it has effect solely in relation to the rights and freedoms safeguarded by the other substantive provisions of the Convention and its Protocols (see Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 159, ECHR 2008-...).
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 29731/96

  Dieter Krombach

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 71072/01

  Taking into account the principles set forth in Krombach v. France (no. 29731/96, § 96, ECHR 2001-II), the Court considers this complaint manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and accordingly declares it inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

 
• EGMR, 23.04.1998 - 22885/93

  BERNARD v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 71072/01

  The Court's task is to ascertain whether the proceedings as a whole were fair (see, inter alia, Bernard v. France, judgment of 23 April 1998, no. 22885/93, § 37, ECHR 1998-II).
• EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01

  ESTRIKH v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 71072/01

  Lastly, the Court notes that the Government have not provided any examples of domestic practice showing the effectiveness of the given remedy (see a similar requirement in Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 98, 18 January 2007).
• EGMR, 19.03.2002 - 77631/01

  MILOSEVIC v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 71072/01

  In this regard the Court notes that it has previously held on multiple occasions that the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust domestic remedies (see, for example, Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 45, ECHR 2006-II; Milosevic v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 77631/01, 19 March 2002; and Pellegriti v. Italy (dec.), no. 77363/01, 26 May 2005).
• EGMR, 26.05.2005 - 77363/01

  PELLEGRITI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 71072/01

  In this regard the Court notes that it has previously held on multiple occasions that the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust domestic remedies (see, for example, Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 45, ECHR 2006-II; Milosevic v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 77631/01, 19 March 2002; and Pellegriti v. Italy (dec.), no. 77363/01, 26 May 2005).

• EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 35810/09

  O'KEEFFE v. IRELAND

  In other words, when a remedy has been pursued, use of another remedy which has essentially the same objective is not required (O"Reilly v. Ireland, no. 24196/94, Commission decision of 22 January 1996; T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 34, 29 April 1999; Moreira Barbosa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 65681/01, ECHR 2004-V; Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, 15 November 2005; and, more recently, Shkalla v. Albania, no. 26866/05, § 61, 10 May 2011; as well as Leja v. Latvia, no. 71072/01, § 46, 14 June 2011).
• EGMR, 02.04.2019 - 69446/17

  BOYACIKÖY PANAYIA EVANGELISTRA CHURCH AND SCHOOL FOUNDATION v. TURKEY

  The Court reiterates that, in the event of there being a number of domestic remedies which an individual can pursue, that person is entitled to choose a remedy which addresses his or her essential grievance (see O"Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, § 109, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and also Leja v. Latvia, no. 71072/01, § 46, 14 June 2011).
• EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 32983/08

  MERTENA v. LATVIA

  At the relevant time Article 111 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided that the offence of inflicting minor bodily injuries belonged in the category of private prosecution cases which had to be brought by a plaintiff directly before the court with jurisdiction (see Leja v. Latvia, no. 71072/01, §§ 35-36, 14 June 2011).