Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ESKELINEN v. FINLAND

  Art. 6, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2004 - 7274/02

  In these circumstances, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant did not make an explicit request to expedite the proceedings, the Supreme Court cannot be said to have been denied the opportunity which the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies is designed to afford to States, namely to put right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see among other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2004 - 7274/02

  The Court refers on this point to its established case-law (see Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 25, § 45).
• EGMR, 25.02.2003 - 77746/01

  KROENITZ v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2004 - 7274/02

  As the legal situation was unclear, the Court does not find that the delay could warrant the conclusion that the procedure, seen as a whole, notwithstanding what was at stake, exceeded a reasonable time (see Kroenitz v. Poland, no. 77746/01, § 22, 25 February 2003).
• EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 48339/99

  KANGASLUOMA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2004 - 7274/02

  The Court recalls that this is in itself sufficient to demonstrate that the remedy referred to does not meet the standard of effectiveness of a remedy, as the required remedy must be effective both in law and in practice (see Kangasluoma v. Finland, no. 48339/99, §§ 47-48, judgment of 20 January 2004).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17

  RUSTAVI 2 BROADCASTING COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  268 and 275; Tormala v. Finland (dec.), no. 41258/98, 16 March 2004; Eskelinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 7274/02, 3 February 2004; Kranz v. Poland (dec.), no. 6214/02, 10 September 2002; and Skowronski v. Poland (dec.), no. 52595/99, 28 June 2001).
• EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 39544/05

  ZAGREBACKA BANKA D.D. v. CROATIA

  268 and 275; Skowronski v. Poland (dec.), no. 52595/99, 28 June 2001; Kranz v. Poland (dec.), no. 6214/02, 10 September 2002; Eskelinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 7274/02, 3 February 2004; and Tormala v. Finland (dec.), no. 41258/98, 16 March 2004).
• EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 72783/11

  THEO NATIONAL CONSTRUCT S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  The Court reiterates in this respect that proceedings concerning civil-law disputes between private parties do not engage by themselves the responsibility of the State under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (Ruiz Mateos v. the United Kingdom, no. 13021/87, Commission decision of 8 September 1988, Decisions and Reports (DR) 57 p. 268; Tormala v. Finland (dec.), no. 41258/98, 16 March 2004; Eskelinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 7274/02, 3 February 2004; Kranz v. Poland (dec.), no. 6214/02, 10 September 2002; and Skowronski v. Poland (dec.), no. 52595/99, 28 June 2001).

• EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 6169/13

  MINDEK v. CROATIA

  268 and 275; Skowronski v. Poland (dec.), no. 52595/99, 28 June 2001; Kranz v. Poland (dec.), no. 6214/02, 10 September 2002; Eskelinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 7274/02, 3 February 2004; and Tormala v. Finland (dec.), no. 41258/98, 16 March 2004).
• EGMR, 18.11.2010 - 17487/08

  [ENG]

  The proceedings in the present case concern a civil law dispute between private individuals and therefore do not themselves engage the responsibility of the State under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see mutatis mutandis, Ruiz Mateos v. the United Kingdom, no. 13021/87, Commission decision of 8 September 1988, Decisions and Reports (DR) 57, p. 268 and 275; Skowronski v. Poland (dec.), no. 52595/99, 28 June 2001; Kranz v. Poland (dec.), no. 6214/02, 10 September 2002; Eskelinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 7274/02, 3 February 2004, and Tormala v. Finland (dec.), no. 41258/98, 16 March 2004).
• EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 13224/05

  [ENG]

  In so far as the applicants complained that the domestic courts prevented, by their judgments, the applicants from recovering their right of possession, the Court has stated on many occasions that domestic court regulation of property disputes according to domestic law does not, by itself, raise any issues under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see for example Eskelinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 7274/02, 3 February 2004).