Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DOWSETT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (NO. 2)

  Art. 6, Art. 13 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 27569/02

  FRANZ FISCHER contre l'AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.01.2011 - 8559/08

  He also accepted that Article 6 did not apply to proceedings concerning the re-opening of criminal proceedings (Fischer v. Austria (dec.), no. 27569/02, ECHR 2003-VI) and it was no part of his case that the proceedings before the Commission were conducted in violation of Article 6. In the circumstances of his case, however, the only effective remedy for the violation identified by the Court was a judicial one.
• EGMR, 01.07.2003 - 29178/95

  FINUCANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.01.2011 - 8559/08

  Under Article 13, he submitted that the Commission was not an effective remedy for the ongoing violation of Article 6. He emphasised that his complaint did not concern the execution of the Court's judgment since he accepted that the Court had no jurisdiction to examine a complaint that a Contracting State had failed to comply with its obligations under a judgment (Komanicky v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 29178/95, 1 July 2003).
• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 32772/02

  Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.01.2011 - 8559/08

  Such a situation had arisen in Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, ECHR 2009-... and had also arisen in his case.

 
• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 5980/07

  ÖCALAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.01.2011 - 8559/08

  Finally, in Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 5980/07, 6 July 2010, the applicant requested the reopening of criminal proceedings against him following this Court's finding of a violation of Article 6 in Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, ECHR 2005-IV. The request was ultimately rejected by the Istanbul Assize Court, which found that, even if the violations found by the Court had not occurred, the applicant would still have been convicted on the basis of the same provisions of the Criminal Code.
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.01.2011 - 8559/08

  Despite the Court's judgment, he remained in the same position as before and, therefore, he remained a victim for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention as no redress had been provided to him (Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51).
• EGMR, 28.06.2001 - 24699/94

  VgT VEREIN GEGEN TIERFABRIKEN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.01.2011 - 8559/08

  Second, in Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) (no. 2), cited above, the Court had previously found a violation of Article 10 owing to a prohibition on broadcasting a television commercial made by the applicant association (Vgt Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, ECHR 2001-VI).

• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 486/14

  Psychiatrie-Opfer scheitert mit erneuter Beschwerde

  Er hat es daher abgelehnt, Rügen, die ein Versäumnis der Staaten betreffen, seine Urteile durchzuführen, zu prüfen, und derartige Rügen ratione materiae für unzulässig erklärt (siehe Moldovan u. a../. Moldau (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 8229/04, 15. Februar 2011; Dowsett./. Vereinigtes Königreich (Nr. 2) (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 8559/08, 4. Januar 2011; Öcalan./. Türkei (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 5980/07, 6. Juli 2010; H../. Deutschland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 11057/02, ECHR 2004 III; Komanický./. Slowakei (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 13677/03, 1. März 2005;… Lyons u. a., a.a.O.;… Krcmá?™ u. a., a.a.O; und [Fischer]./. Österreich (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 27569/02, ECHR 2003 VI).
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  Elle a ainsi refusé d'examiner des griefs tirés d'une inexécution par l'État de ses arrêts, les déclarant irrecevables ratione materiae (Moldovan et autres c. Moldova (déc.), no 8229/04, 15 février 2011 ; Dowsett c. Royaume-uni (no 2) (déc.), no 8559/08, 4 janvier 2011 ; Öcalan c. Turquie (déc.), no 5980/07, 6 juillet 2010 ; Haase c. Allemagne, no 11057/02, CEDH 2004 III ; Komanický c. Slovaquie (déc.), no 13677/03, 1er mars 2005 ; Lyons et autres, décision précitée ; Krcmár et autres, décision précitée, et [Fischer] c. Autriche (déc.), no 27569/02, CEDH 2003-VI).
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 12214/07

  EGMEZ v. CYPRUS

  It has therefore refused to examine complaints concerning the failure by States to execute its judgments, declaring such complaints inadmissible ratione materiae (see Moldovan and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 8229/04, 15 February 2011; Dowsett v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) (dec.), no. 8559/08, 4 January 2011; Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 5980/07, 6 July 2010; Haase v. Germany, no. 11057/02, ECHR 2004-III; Komanický v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 13677/03, 1 March 2005; Lyons and Others, cited above; Krcmár and Others, cited above; and Franz Fischer v. Austria (dec.), no. 27569/02, ECHR 2003-VI).

 
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 9644/09

  KAFKARIS v. CYPRUS

  It has therefore refused to examine complaints concerning the failure by States to execute its judgments, declaring such complaints inadmissible ratione materiae (see Moldovan and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 8229/04, 15 February 2011; Dowsett v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) (dec.), no. 8559/08, 4 January 2011; Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 5980/07, 6 July 2010; Haase v. Germany, no. 11057/02, ECHR 2004-III; Komanický v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 13677/03, 1 March 2005; Lyons and Others, cited above; Krcmár and Others, cited above; and Franz Fischer v. Austria (dec.), no. 27569/02, ECHR 2003-VI).
• EGMR, 03.09.2013 - 19923/10

  PATERSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Court would point out that whether such a reference should be made and whether, when a reference is made, the courts should quash the conviction are essentially matters for the domestic authorities and for the Committee of Ministers in its role in supervising the means by which a respondent State discharged its legal obligations under Article 46 of the Convention (see Dowsett v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) (dec.), no. 8559/08, 4 January 2011, concerning the refusal of the Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer the applicant's case back to the Court of Appeal, and Lyons and Others v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 15227/03, ECHR 2003-IX, concerning the Court of Appeal's decision not to quash a conviction in case which had been referred to it by the Commission).
• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 33800/14

  HARABIN v. SLOVAKIA

  It has therefore refused to examine complaints concerning the failure by States to execute its judgments, declaring such complaints inadmissible ratione materiae (see Moldovan and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 8229/04, 15 February 2011; Dowsett v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) (dec.), no. 8559/08, 4 January 2011; Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 5980/07, 6 July 2010; Haase v. Germany, no. 11057/02, ECHR 2004 III; Komanický v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 13677/03, 1 March 2005; Lyons and Others, cited above; Krcmár and Others [v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 69190/01, 30 March 2004]; and [Fischer] v. Austria (dec.), no. 27569/02, ECHR 2003 VI).
• EGMR, 04.01.2012 - 6863/09

  T.N.B. AND C.D. v. ROMANIA

  It has therefore refused to examine complaints concerning the failure by States to execute its judgments, declaring such complaints inadmissible ratione materiae (see Moldovan and Others v. Romania (dec.), no. 8229/04, 15 February 2011; Dowsett v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) (dec.), no. 8559/08, 4 January 2011; Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 5980/07, 6 July 2010; Haase v. Germany, no. 11057/02, ECHR 2004-III; Komanický v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 13677/03, 1 March 2005; Lyons and Others, cited above; Krcmár and Others, cited above; and Franz Fischer v. Austria (dec.), no. 27569/02, ECHR 2003-VI).