Articolul 34/35 - Cereri individuale și condiții de admisibilitate
Ghid privind jurisprudența
Actualizări de articole
Cauze selectate pentru actualizarea ghidului privind jurisprudența.
Taganova and Others v. Georgia and Russia, nos. 18102/04 and 4 others
Article 35: complaints regarding property destroyed before the ratification of the Convention by the respondent State found to be incompatible ratione temporis; lack of access to property, over which the applicants had prima facie kept legal ownership, defined as a continuing situation falling within Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis.
Judgment
Ribár v. Slovakia, no. 56545/21
Article 35: failure to exhaust available and effective domestic remedies with respect to alleged violations stemming from statute that allows for discretion in its implementation.
Judgment
M.T.S. and M.J.S. v. Portugal, no. 39848/19
Article 34: the first applicant’s locus standi to apply on behalf of her mother, the second applicant, confirmed the two Lambert criteria: (a) the risk that the direct victim would otherwise be deprived of effective protection of her rights, (b) and the absence of a conflict of interests between the victim and the applicant.
Judgment
Teme-cheie
Liste de cauze adnotate pe un subiect relevant pentru acest articol.
Temă(e)-cheie conexă(e) din alte pagini de articole / teme transversale
- Representation of the child before the ECHR (Article 8)
Materiale utile
Selecție de materiale de jurisprudență privind acest articol.
Linkuri utile
Selecție de site-uri web privind jurisprudența Curții.