Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 11982/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2007,55464
EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 11982/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,55464)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06.12.2007 - 11982/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,55464)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06. Dezember 2007 - 11982/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,55464)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,55464) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    NOVINSKIY v. RUSSIA

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
    Declares admissible without prejudging the merits of the case Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

    Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 11982/02
    It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
  • EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

    WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 11982/02
    Despite the fact that the Government only raised this argument in respect of IVS-1 and IZ-63/2, the Court observes that it has previously held that it cannot set aside the application of the six-month rule solely because a government has not made a preliminary objection to that effect (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I, and, more recently, Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 68, ECHR 2006-...) and therefore finds it necessary to examine the compliance with the six-month rule in connection with the complaints about all pre-trial detention centres referred to by the applicant as well as the conditions of his transportation.
  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

    Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 11982/02
    The Court further reiterates that the domestic remedies must be "effective" in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158, ECHR-XI).
  • EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

    Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention,

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 11982/02
    For the above reasons, the Court finds that this part of the application cannot be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see also Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, §§ 204-06, 13 July 2006; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 55-58, 1 June 2006; and Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

    MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 11982/02
    It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
  • EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

    BLECIC v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 11982/02
    Despite the fact that the Government only raised this argument in respect of IVS-1 and IZ-63/2, the Court observes that it has previously held that it cannot set aside the application of the six-month rule solely because a government has not made a preliminary objection to that effect (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I, and, more recently, Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 68, ECHR 2006-...) and therefore finds it necessary to examine the compliance with the six-month rule in connection with the complaints about all pre-trial detention centres referred to by the applicant as well as the conditions of his transportation.
  • EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

    MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 11982/02
    For the above reasons, the Court finds that this part of the application cannot be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see also Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, §§ 204-06, 13 July 2006; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 55-58, 1 June 2006; and Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

    POPOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 11982/02
    For the above reasons, the Court finds that this part of the application cannot be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see also Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, §§ 204-06, 13 July 2006; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 55-58, 1 June 2006; and Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

    IDALOV c. RUSSIE

    Dans ces conditions, les documents établis par les autorités plusieurs années après la période considérée en l'espèce ne peuvent passer pour suffisamment fiables (voir, parmi d'autres précédents, Novinski c. Russie, no 11982/02, § 105, 10 février 2009).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht