Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 22677/11 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,4489) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KONDAKOVS v. LATVIA
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97
WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 22677/11
Even if the Government have not raised the question of the six-month rule it does not prevent the Court from examining it of its own motion (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I). - EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 31697/03
BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 22677/11
The Court refers, further, to the extensive case-law to the effect that an application for retrial or similar extraordinary remedies cannot, as a general rule, be taken into account for the purpose of applying Article 35 of the Convention (see Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II, with further references). - EGMR, 05.01.2006 - 14881/04
FERNIE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 22677/11
This entitles only remedies which are normal and effective to be taken into account as an applicant cannot extend the strict time-limit imposed under the Convention by seeking to make inappropriate or misconceived applications to bodies or institutions which have no power or competence to offer effective redress for the complaint in issue under the Convention (see Fernie v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 14881/04, 5 January 2006).
- EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 19750/13
GROSAM v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
This rule concerns only remedies which are normal and effective and an applicant cannot extend the strict time-limit imposed under the Convention by seeking to make inappropriate or misconceived applications to bodies or institutions which have no power or competence to offer effective redress for the complaint in issue under the Convention (see, for example, Fernie v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 14881/04, 5 January 2006; Beiere v. Latvia, no. 30954/05, § 28, 29 November 2011; and, by contrast, Hizb Ut-Tahrir and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 31098/08, 12 June 2012; Petrovic v. Serbia, no. 40485/08, § 60, 15 July 2014; and Kondakovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 22677/11, 12 January 2016).