Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 20506/07, 11134/08 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2022,12596) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
OSANKIN AND MAZURINA v. RUSSIA
Inadmissible (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00
MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 20506/07
However, a civil law claim in such cases is not an appropriate remedy for the purposes of exhaustion of domestic remedies before applying to the Court (see Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 77, ECHR 2006-III). - VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 01.04.2005 - 16/04
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 20506/07
16/04/2007. - EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 26344/06
AFONICHEV c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 20506/07
As to the round of investigation which had occurred in 2010 in the wake of the communication of the present complaint, its results do not call into question this conclusion, as no information was submitted to the Court demonstrating that this new round of proceedings was based on new facts which could have revived the procedural obligation under Article 3 and therefore bring the complaint within the scope of the Court's temporal jurisdiction (see Afonichev v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no. 26344/06, § 55, 2 June 2015, with further references). - EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 17767/06
RAUSH v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 20506/07
The Court reiterates that the duty of diligence requires an applicant not only to apply promptly to domestic authorities, but also obliges to undertake elementary steps and seek information from the relevant authorities about the investigation's progress or the lack thereof, as well as to lodge an application with the Court as soon as he or she realises, or ought to have realised, that the investigation is not effective (see Raush v. Russia (dec.), no. 17767/06, §§ 56-67, 22 March 2016).