Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 20.12.2005 - 30865/96 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,61949) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 19.10.1998 - 30865/96
- EGMR, 21.01.2003 - 30865/96
- EGMR, 20.12.2005 - 30865/96
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83
HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2005 - 30865/96
What is decisive is whether this fear can be held to be objectively justified (see, among many other examples, Piersack v. Belgium, judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, § 30; Hauschildt v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 21, § 47; Gregory v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 February 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I, p. 308, § 43 and Sander v. the United Kingdom, no. 34129/96, § 22, ECHR 2000-V). - EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79
PIERSACK v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2005 - 30865/96
What is decisive is whether this fear can be held to be objectively justified (see, among many other examples, Piersack v. Belgium, judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, § 30; Hauschildt v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 21, § 47; Gregory v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 February 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I, p. 308, § 43 and Sander v. the United Kingdom, no. 34129/96, § 22, ECHR 2000-V).
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 11.10.2016 - C-439/16
Milev - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Eilvorabentscheidungsverfahren - …
23 - Vgl. beispielsweise EGMR, 20. Dezember 2005, Jasi?"ski/Polen, CE:ECHR:2005:1220JUD003086596, § 55, 22. April 2010, Chesne/Frankreich, CE:ECHR:2010:0422JUD002980806, § 36, und 13. Juni 2013, Romenskiy/Russland, CE:ECHR:2013:0613JUD002287502, § 27. - EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 41541/05
NOZADZE v. GEORGIA
In other words, the applicant failed to bring to the attention of the domestic courts the specific procedural issue that he has raised in the proceedings before the Court (compare, amongst many other authorities, Sawalha v. Sweden (dec.), no. 64299/01, 13 January 2004, and Jasinski v. Poland (dec.), no. 30865/96, 21 January 2003; see also, mutatis mutandis, Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, §§ 38-42, ECHR 2004-III).