Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NORKIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 13, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 21056/11

  By way of illustration, they referred to the case of Novoselov v. Russia (no. 66460/01, 2 June 2005), in which the application had been lodged with the Court more than six months after the end of the detention period and more than one year and eight months before the institution of civil proceedings, to the case of Salakhutdinov v. Russia (no. 43589/02, 11 February 2010), in which the applicant's complaint about the conditions of detention was rejected as being out of time, and to the case of Pavlenko v. Russia (no. 42371/02, 1 April 2010), in which the Court reiterated that an applicant attempting a remedy which the Court considers inappropriate, runs the risk that the time taken to do so will not interrupt the running of the six-month time-limit.
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02

  PAVLENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 21056/11

  By way of illustration, they referred to the case of Novoselov v. Russia (no. 66460/01, 2 June 2005), in which the application had been lodged with the Court more than six months after the end of the detention period and more than one year and eight months before the institution of civil proceedings, to the case of Salakhutdinov v. Russia (no. 43589/02, 11 February 2010), in which the applicant's complaint about the conditions of detention was rejected as being out of time, and to the case of Pavlenko v. Russia (no. 42371/02, 1 April 2010), in which the Court reiterated that an applicant attempting a remedy which the Court considers inappropriate, runs the risk that the time taken to do so will not interrupt the running of the six-month time-limit.
• EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 43589/02

  SALAKHUTDINOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 21056/11

  By way of illustration, they referred to the case of Novoselov v. Russia (no. 66460/01, 2 June 2005), in which the application had been lodged with the Court more than six months after the end of the detention period and more than one year and eight months before the institution of civil proceedings, to the case of Salakhutdinov v. Russia (no. 43589/02, 11 February 2010), in which the applicant's complaint about the conditions of detention was rejected as being out of time, and to the case of Pavlenko v. Russia (no. 42371/02, 1 April 2010), in which the Court reiterated that an applicant attempting a remedy which the Court considers inappropriate, runs the risk that the time taken to do so will not interrupt the running of the six-month time-limit.

• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 26344/06

  AFONICHEV c. RUSSIE

  Or, ce grief n'aurait été soulevé devant la Cour qu'en 2006 (voir Norkine c. Russie (déc.), no 21056/11, 5 février 2013).
• EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 40044/12

  DMITRIYEV v. RUSSIA

  The final decision on the applicant's claim for compensation could not re-trigger the running of the six-month time-limit since the Court has already found that it was not an effective remedy to be exhausted (here they referred to Norkin v. Russia (dec.), no. 21056/11, 5 February 2013).
• EGMR, 22.09.2015 - 28438/07

  ANTIPENKOV v. RUSSIA

  In Norkin, the Court found that by 2007 its case-law on the absence of an effective remedy for complaints concerning poor conditions of detention had been sufficiently established and concluded that the applicant should have been aware of the ineffectiveness of the judicial avenue he had made use of before he lodged his application (see Norkin v. Russia (dec.), no. 21056/11, §§ 15-20, 5 February 2013).

 
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 24728/12

  ZAKHARCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  47696/09 and 79806/12, 10 December 2013; Norkin v. Russia (dec.), no. 21056/11, 5 February 2013; and Karnaushko and Others v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no. 17500/10, 15 December 2016).
• EGMR, 26.08.2014 - 53478/07

  BOYKIN v. RUSSIA

  The Government submitted that the applicant's situation was identical to the one examined by the Court in case of Norkin v. Russia ((dec.), no. 21056/11, 5 February 2013).
• EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 39586/09

  DEDIKOV c. RUSSIE

  Il s'ensuit que l'action au civil intentée par le requérant et terminée par la décision définitive du 4 août 2009 ne peut pas interrompre le délai de six mois qui commence à couler à partir du dernier jour de la détention du requérant (Norkin c. Russie (déc.), no 21056/11, 5 février 2013).