LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
ANDRONICOU AND CONSTANTINOU v. CYPRUSPARTLY DISSENTING OPINION BY MM. C.A. NØRGAARD AND G. JÖRUNDSSON
Doc ref: • ECHR ID:
Document date: May 23, 1996
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
ANDRONICOU AND CONSTANTINOU v. CYPRUSPARTLY DISSENTING OPINION BY MM. C.A. NØRGAARD AND G. JÖRUNDSSON
Doc ref: • ECHR ID:
Document date: May 23, 1996
Cited paragraphs only
PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION BY MM. C.A. NØRGAARD AND G. JÖRUNDSSON
We have voted against the finding of a violation of Article 2 in
the present case for two reasons.
First, the Commission has found that there is no violation of
Article 6 because the applicants had the possibility of bringing a
claim for compensation in a civil case, in other words they had a
remedy which they did not use, therefore we do not find that local
remedies have been exhausted.
Secondly, with regard to the merits of Article 2 we have joined
Mr. Schermers's dissenting opinion.
(Or. English)
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
