Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOLU v. FINLAND

  N/A MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 32567/06

  WILLIAMS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 56463/10

  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, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99

  Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 56463/10

  46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 and 21819/04, § 70, ECHR 2010-...).
• EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 3843/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 56463/10

  46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 and 21819/04, § 70, ECHR 2010-...).

 
• EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 57420/00

  YOUNGER contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 56463/10

  Thus where no effective remedy is available to an applicant, the time-limit expires six months after the date of the acts or measures about which he complains, or after the date of knowledge of that act or its effect or prejudice on the applicant (see Younger v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 57420/00, ECHR 2003-I; and Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 31697/03

  BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 56463/10

  In particular, the Court observes that it has consistently rejected applications in which the applicants have submitted their complaints within six months from the decisions rejecting their requests for reopening of the proceedings on the ground that such decisions could not be considered "final decisions" for the purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II; Riedl-Riedenstein and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 48662/99, 22 January 2002; and Babinsky v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 35833/97, 11 January 2000).
• EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 21287/02

  PRYSTAVSKA contre l'UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 56463/10

  The pursuit of remedies which do not satisfy the requirements of Article 35 § 1 will not be considered by the Court for the purposes of establishing the date of the "final decision" or calculating the starting point for the running of the six-month rule (see Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002; and Sapeyan v. Armenia, no. 35738/03, § 21, 13 January 2009).
• EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 61406/00

  GUREPKA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 56463/10

  Furthermore, remedies the use of which depends on the discretionary powers of public officials and which are, as a consequence, not directly accessible to the applicant cannot be considered as effective remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Tumilovich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47033/99, 2 June 1999; Gurepka v. Ukraine, no. 61406/00, § 60, 6 September 2005; and Tanase v. Moldova [GC], no. 7/08, § 122, ECHR 2010-...).
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 35738/03

  SAPEYAN v. ARMENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 56463/10

  The pursuit of remedies which do not satisfy the requirements of Article 35 § 1 will not be considered by the Court for the purposes of establishing the date of the "final decision" or calculating the starting point for the running of the six-month rule (see Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002; and Sapeyan v. Armenia, no. 35738/03, § 21, 13 January 2009).
• EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 34586/10

  TUCKA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 56463/10

  Similarly, remedies which have no precise time-limits, thus creating uncertainty and rendering nugatory the six-month rule contained in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, are not effective remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 (see Denisov, cited above; Galstyan, cited above, § 39; Williams, cited above; and Tucka v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34586/10, 18 January 2011).
• EGMR, 22.01.2002 - 48662/99

  RIEDL-RIEDENSTEIN and OTHERS v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 56463/10

  In particular, the Court observes that it has consistently rejected applications in which the applicants have submitted their complaints within six months from the decisions rejecting their requests for reopening of the proceedings on the ground that such decisions could not be considered "final decisions" for the purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II; Riedl-Riedenstein and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 48662/99, 22 January 2002; and Babinsky v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 35833/97, 11 January 2000).
• EGMR, 22.06.1999 - 47033/99

  TUMILOVICH v. RUSSIA

• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 24096/05

  VEFA HOLDING SH.P.K. AND ALIMUCAJ v. ALBANIA

  Where an applicant avails himself of an apparently existing remedy and only subsequently becomes aware of circumstances which render the remedy ineffective, it may be appropriate for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 to take the start of the six-month period from the date when the applicant first became or ought to have become aware of those circumstances (see Kolu v. Finland (dec.), no. 56463/10, 3 May 2011; Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 63246/10

  NICHOLAS v. CYPRUS

  As regards the Government's claim that the applicant should have lodged an application for the reopening of the appeal in the light of facts which came to light after the judgment had been given, the Court reiterates its extensive case-law to the effect that an application for a retrial or the reopening of the appeal proceedings or for a similar extraordinary remedy cannot, as a general rule, be taken into account for the purposes of applying Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, amongst many authorities, Korzeniak v. Poland, no.56134/08, § 39, 10 January 2017; Kudeshkina v. Russia, no. 29492/05, § 90, 26 February 2009; Rizi v. Albania (dec), no. 49201/06, § 44, 8 November 2011; Kolu v. Finland (dec.), no. 56463/10, 3 May 2011; Vainio v. Finland (dec.), no. 62123/09, 3 May 2011; and Tucka v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34586/10, § 15, 18 January 2011; all with further references).
• EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 27458/06

  LAKICEVIC AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO AND SERBIA

  As the request for judicial review in the administrative dispute, even if described as "extraordinary" in the Administrative Dispute Act (zahtjev za vanredno preispitivanje sudske odluke) corresponds to the said remedies in civil and criminal proceedings, the Court considers that, given its nature, it must also, in principle and whenever available in accordance with the relevant rules on procedure, be considered an effective domestic remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (compare and contrast the analysis in Kolu v. Finland (dec.), no. 56463/10, ECHR 3 May 2011).
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 49201/06

  RIZI v. ALBANIA

  In particular, the Court observes that it has consistently rejected applications in which the applicants have submitted their complaints within six months from the decisions rejecting their requests for reopening of the proceedings on the ground that such decisions could not be considered "final decisions" for the purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Kolu v. Finland (dec.), no. 56463/10, 3 May 2011; Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II; Riedl-Riedenstein and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 48662/99, 22 January 2002; and Babinsky v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 35833/97, 11 January 2000).
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 29785/07

  H. v. ICELAND

  While it is true that the Convention institutions have exceptionally shown a certain degree of flexibility in this respect in the past, notably in some earlier decisions (see Nielsen, cited above, and X. and Church of Scientology v. Sweden, no. 7805/77, Commission decision of 5 May 1979, Decisions and Reports 16, p. 71), the Court discerns no reason for departing from this rule in the instant case (for a recent affirmation of the rule, see Tucka v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34586/10, 18 January 2011; and Kolu v. Finland (dec.), no. 56463/10, 3 May 2011).