Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FINOZHENOK v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 26.05.2005 - 46231/99

  AYDIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 3025/06

  The Court observes that in a number of cases concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of applicants" relatives it has examined the period of time from which the applicant can or should start doubting the effectiveness of a remedy and its bearing on the six-month limit provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Sükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; and Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 50, 15 December 2009).
• EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 18907/02

  NARIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 3025/06

  The Court observes that in a number of cases concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of applicants" relatives it has examined the period of time from which the applicant can or should start doubting the effectiveness of a remedy and its bearing on the six-month limit provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Sükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; and Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 50, 15 December 2009).
• EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 57952/00

  ELSANOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 3025/06

  The Court observes that in a number of cases concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of applicants" relatives it has examined the period of time from which the applicant can or should start doubting the effectiveness of a remedy and its bearing on the six-month limit provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Sükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; and Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 50, 15 December 2009).

• EGMR, 30.01.2014 - 4124/08

  VELIKANOV v. RUSSIA

  Therefore, despite the delay with which the applicant sought to institute criminal proceedings in connection with his allegations of ill-treatment, in the specific circumstances of the present case the Court finds that the ensuing investigation must be taken into account for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, by contrast, Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), no. 3025/06, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 52577/15

  TODOROVIC v. CROATIA

  In other cases it ranged from three and a half years to one year and eight months (in Gojevic-Zrnic and Mancic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 5676/13, § 31, 17 March 2015) and Bayram and Yildirim v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 38587/97, 29 January 2002) it was three and a half years; in Finozhenok v. Russia ((dec.), no. 3025/06, 31 May 2011) it was three years; in Deari and Others v. the Former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia ((dec.), no. 54415/09, § 49, 6 March 2012) it was two and a half years; in Elsanova v. Russia ((dec.), no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005) it was two years; and in Gusar v. the Republic of Moldova and Romania ((dec.), no. 37204/02, § 17, 30 April 2013) it was one year and eight months.
• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 26344/06

  AFONICHEV c. RUSSIE

  En l'absence d'autres éléments, la Cour ne peut que partager l'avis du requérant et considère qu'un tel développement, intervenu après une interruption de neuf ans, ne saurait constituer un recours interne effectif (voir, mutatis mutandis, Finozhenok c. Russie (déc.), no 3025/06, 31 mai 2011 et Nasirkhayeva c. Russie (déc.), no 1721/07, 31 mai 2011).

 
• EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 54415/09

  DEARI AND OTHERS v.

  The Court observes that in a number of cases concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of applicants" relatives it has examined the period of time from which the applicant can or should start doubting the effectiveness of a remedy and its bearing on the six-month limit provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III; Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002; Sükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; and Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), no. 3025/06, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 18.09.2018 - 4800/10

  SHAVLOKHOVA v. GEORGIA

  The Court reiterates that, pursuant to the principle of legal certainty, which is a cornerstone of the six-month rule contained in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, a victim of an action allegedly in contravention of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention must take steps to keep track of the relevant criminal proceedings or lack thereof, and to lodge his or her application with due expedition once he or she becomes, or should have become, aware of the lack of any effective criminal investigation (see, amongst many other authorities, Akhvlediani and Others v. Georgia (dec.), no. 22026/10, §§ 23-29, 9 April 2013; Manukyan v. Georgia (dec.), no. 53073/07, 9 October 2012; Ekrem Baytap v. Turkey (dec.), no. 17579/05, 29 April 2010; MaÄ?er v. Croatia, no. 56185/07, § 84, 21 June 2011; Stanimirovic v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 29, 18 October 2011; Nasirkhayeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 1721/07, 31 May 2011; and Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), 3025/06, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 37204/02

  GUSAR v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND ROMANIA

  16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 158, ECHR 2009-...; see also, Baran and Hun, cited above, § 46; Ekrem Baytap v. Turkey (dec.), no. 17579/05, 29 April 2010; MaÄ?er v. Croatia, no. 56185/07, § 84, 21 June 2011; Stanimirovic v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 29, 18 October 2011; Nasirkhaeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 1721/07, 31 May 2011; and Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), 3025/06, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 53073/07

  MANUKYAN v. GEORGIA

  16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 158, ECHR 2009-...; see also, Baran and Hun, cited above, § 46; Ekrem Baytap v. Turkey (dec.), no. 17579/05, 29 April 2010; MaÄ?er v. Croatia, no. 56185/07, § 84, 21 June 2011; Stanimirovic v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 29, 18 October 2011; Nasirkhaeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 1721/07, 31 May 2011; and Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), 3025/06, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 05.10.2021 - 48347/08

  BEKOYEVA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  However, for this particular positive obligation to be triggered, the Court considers that the next-of-kin of an individual killed during the armed clashes would also be expected to display a certain degree of diligence in their dealings with the investigative authorities (compare, mutatis mutandis, Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), no. 3025/06, 31 May 2011, and Aydin and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005) by, inter alia, taking the initiative and lodging a criminal complaint capable of substantiating the allegations with prima facie evidence (namely, death certificates and/or detailed descriptions of the relevant incidents).
• EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 37678/10

  SUBARI AND KOBIDZE v. GEORGIA

  One of the corollaries of the above-mentioned purpose is that an applicant claiming serious violations, such as those under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, must timely take the steps necessary for keeping track of the investigation's progress, or lack thereof, and to lodge their applications with due expedition once they are, or should have become, aware of the lack of any effective criminal investigation (see, amongst many other authorities, Manukyan v. Georgia (dec.), no. 53073/07, 9 October 2012; Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III; and Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), 3025/06, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 29.08.2017 - 27240/09

  GISAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In a number of cases concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of applicants" relatives, the Court has examined the period of time from which an applicant can or should start doubting the effectiveness of a remedy and its bearing on the six-month limit provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Sükran Aydin and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 50, 15 December 2009; and Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), no. 3025/06, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 27631/12

  VARTIC v. ROMANIA