Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WILLIAMS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 2 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 28.10.1998 - 24760/94

  ASSENOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 32567/06

  In order to comply with the rule, normal recourse should be had by an applicant to remedies which are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria no. 24760/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-VIII).

• EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 62123/09

  VAINIO v. FINLAND

  Finally, it ensures that, insofar as possible, matters are examined while they are still fresh, before the passage of time makes it difficult to ascertain the pertinent facts and renders a fair examination of the question at issue almost impossible (see Kelly v. the United Kingdom, no. 10626/83, Commission decision of 7 May 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 42, p. 205; Baybora and Others v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 77116/01, 22 October 2002; Denisov v. Russia (dec.), no. 33408/03, 6 May 2004; and Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.) no. 32567/06, 17 February 2009).

  In assessing whether an applicant has complied with Article 35 § 1, it is important to recall that the requirements contained in that Article concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period are closely interrelated (see Galstyan v. Armenia, no. 26986/03, § 39, 15 November 2007; and Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.) no. 32567/06, 17 February 2009).

• EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 56463/10

  KOLU v. FINLAND

  Finally, it ensures that, insofar as possible, matters are examined while they are still fresh, before the passage of time makes it difficult to ascertain the pertinent facts and renders a fair examination of the question at issue almost impossible (see Kelly v. the United Kingdom, no. 10626/83, Commission decision of 7 May 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 42, p. 205; Baybora and Others v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 77116/01, 22 October 2002; Denisov v. Russia (dec.), no. 33408/03, 6 May 2004; and Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.) no. 32567/06, 17 February 2009).

  In assessing whether an applicant has complied with Article 35 § 1, it is important to recall that the requirements contained in that Article concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period are closely interrelated (see Galstyan v. Armenia, no. 26986/03, § 39, 15 November 2007; and Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.) no. 32567/06, 17 February 2009).

• EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 34586/10

  TUCKA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (No. 1)

  Finally, it ensures that, insofar as possible, matters are examined while they are still fresh, before the passage of time makes it difficult to ascertain the pertinent facts and renders a fair examination of the question at issue almost impossible (see Kelly v. the United Kingdom, no. 10626/83, Commission decision of 7 May 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 42, p. 205; Baybora and Others v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 77116/01, 22 October 2002; Denisov v. Russia (dec.), no. 33408/03, 6 May 2004; and Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.) no. 32567/06, 17 February 2009).

  In assessing whether an applicant has complied with Article 35 § 1, it is important to recall that the requirements contained in that Article concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period are closely interrelated (see Galstyan v. Armenia, no. 26986/03, § 39, 15 November 2007; and Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.) no. 32567/06, 17 February 2009).

 
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 44898/10

  JERONOVICS v. LATVIA

  Finally, it ensures that, in so far as possible, matters are examined while they are still fresh, before the passage of time makes it difficult to ascertain the pertinent facts and renders a fair examination of the question at issue almost impossible (see Kelly v. the United Kingdom, no. 10626/83, Commission decision of 7 May 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 42, p. 205; Baybora and Others v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 77116/01, 22 October 2002; Denisov v. Russia (dec.), no. 33408/03, 6 May 2004; and Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.) no. 32567/06, 17 February 2009).
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 52577/15

  TODOROVIC v. CROATIA

  As to the steps taken after 24 September 2015, the Court reiterates that where information purportedly casting new light on the circumstances of a death comes into the public domain, a new obligation to investigate the death may arise (see Hackett v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34698/04, 10 May 2005; Brecknell v. the United Kingdom, no. 32457/04, §§ 66-67, 27 November 2007; Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 32567/06, 17 February 2009; Gasyak and Others v. Turkey, no. 27872/03, § 60, 13 October 2009; and Harrison and Others, cited above, § 51).
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 28263/09

  BARATTA c. ITALIE

  Il observe que ce délai commence à courir à partir de la date de décision interne définitive ; cependant, dans le cadre de l'examen de l'épuisement des voies de recours internes, la Cour ne devrait prendre en considération que les recours ordinaires, les remèdes extraordinaires et/ou pour l'introduction desquels aucun délai contraignant n'est fixé n'entrant pas en ligne des comptes (voir, notamment, Williams c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 32567/06, 17 février 2009).
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 19064/07

  BERRY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM AND OTHER APPLICATIONS

  Finally, it ensures that, insofar as possible, matters are examined while they are still fresh, before the passage of time makes it difficult to ascertain the pertinent facts and renders a fair examination of the question at issue almost impossible (see Baybora and Others v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 77116/01, 22 October 2002; Denisov v. Russia (dec.), no. 33408/03, 6 May 2004; Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.) no. 32567/06, 17 February 2009; and Tucka, cited above, § 13).
• EGMR, 30.08.2011 - 51987/07

  ATALLAH c. FRANCE

  En effet, la requérante ne pouvait raisonnablement attendre de la procédure qu'elle avait engagée en France qu'elle apporte des éléments donnant un nouvel éclairage à l'affaire (voir Hackett c. Royaume-Uni (no. 34698/04, (déc.), 10 mai 2005, Brecknell c. Royaume-Uni, no. 32457/04, §§ 66-67, 27 novembre 2007, et Williams c. Royaume-Uni, no 32567/06, (déc.), 17 février 2009).
• EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 17220/09

  DINCHEV v. BULGARIA

  The Court notes in this connection the following: (1) the request for reopening was directly accessible to the applicant as a party to the completed proceedings and it did not depend on the discretion of any public authority to ask for it (contrary to the applicant's situation in the case of Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 33 and § 56, ECHR 2003-IX, where the power to bring review proceedings in respect of final judgments lay solely with several public officials and not with the parties to the proceedings; see to this effect also Tanase v. Moldova [GC], no. 7/08, ECHR 2010, § 122); (2) that remedy was specifically provided for in law and the possibility to use it was circumscribed to a relatively short period in time (three months from learning about the reason, see paragraph 14 above, unlike the applicant's situation in the case of Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 62, ECHR 1999-VII, where applications for review of final judgments were not subject to any time-limit, so that judgments were liable to challenge indefinitely; see also, similarly, Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 32567/06, 17 February 2009); (3) the grounds for reopening were exhaustively enumerated and those included the situation in which the present applicant found himself, namely where "in breach of the relevant rules the party has been deprived of the opportunity to take part in the proceedings and has not been adequately represented, or when the party could not appear in person or be represented before the court for reasons beyond that party's control" (see paragraph 16 above); (4) it was the only legal avenue through which the State could have put matters right in its own legal system and thus reinforced in practice the subsidiary role of the Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Sobczyk (dec.), cited above, § 56); and (5) there is no reason to believe that it would not afford the applicant the opportunity to obtain redress for his grievance or that it would have no reasonable prospect of success (see Brusco, cited above).
• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 52334/13

  WRIGHT AND BROWN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The requirements contained in Article 35 § 1 concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period are closely interrelated (see Galstyan v. Armenia, no. 26986/03, § 39, 15 November 2007 and Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.) no. 32567/06, 17 February 2009).
• EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 20555/03

  CAZACU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 49201/06

  RIZI v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 40965/10

  AKCICEK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16343/07

  METSAVEER v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 51144/07

  SHEIKH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 28721/09

  ÇOBANOGLU c. TURQUIE