Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AMIRYAN v. ARMENIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 18064/91

  HIRO BALANI v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 31553/03

  That is why the question of whether a court has failed to fulfil the obligation to state reasons can only be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case (see, among other authorities, Hiro Balani v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 27, Series A no. 303-B).
• EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 57420/00

  YOUNGER contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 31553/03

  Where no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the time-limit expires six months after the date of the acts or measures complained of, 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).
• EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 31697/03

  BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 31553/03

  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, 13.01.2009 - 31553/03

  Thus, the pursuit of remedies which fall short of the above requirements will have consequences for the identification of the "final decision" and, correspondingly, for the calculation of the starting point for the running of the six-month rule (see Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002).
• EGMR, 22.01.2002 - 48662/99

  RIEDL-RIEDENSTEIN and OTHERS v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 31553/03

  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, 26.10.2006 - 56796/00

  DANOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 31553/03

  The Court reiterates that, pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it may only deal with a matter where it has been introduced within six months from the date of the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see, among other authorities, Danov v. Bulgaria, no. 56796/00, § 56, 26 October 2006).
• EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 29703/05

  PETRIE AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 31553/03

  Since Article 35 § 1 cannot be interpreted in a manner which would require an applicant to seize the Court before his position in connection with his complaint has been finally settled at the domestic level (see Petrie and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 29703/05, 6 February 2007), it means that an applicant is required under that Article to seize the Court once his position in connection with his complaint has finally been settled and the reopening of a case on unrelated grounds will not affect the finality of the settlement in respect of that particular issue.
• EKMR, 18.05.1994 - 23949/94

  PUFLER contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 31553/03

  However, the Court has also accepted that situations in which a request to reopen the proceedings is successful and actually results in a reopening may be an exception to this rule (see Pufler v. France, no. 23949/94, Commission decision of 18 May 1994, Decisions and Reports 77-B, p. 140; Korkmaz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 42576/98, 17 January 2006; and Atkın v. Turkey, no. 39977/98, § 33, 21 February 2006).