Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SOKOLOV AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 40167/06

  SARGSYAN c. AZERBAÏDJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 30859/10

  The Court has, for example, imposed a duty of diligence and initiative on applicants wishing to complain about the continuing failure of the State to comply with its obligations in the context of ongoing disappearances or the right to property or home (see, for example, Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 et seq., §§ 159-172, ECHR 2009, and Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC] (dec.), no. 40167/06, §§ 124-148, 14 December 2011).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 30859/10

  It marks out the temporal limits of supervision carried out by the Court and signals to both individuals and State authorities the period beyond which such supervision is no longer possible (see, amongst other authorities, Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 27.03.1962 - 214/56

  DE BECKER c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 30859/10

  The existence of such a time-limit is justified by the wish of the High Contracting Parties to prevent past judgments being constantly called into question and constitutes a legitimate concern for order, stability and peace (see De Becker v. Belgium (dec.), no. 214/56, 9 June 1958).

 
• EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 34615/02

  KRAVCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 30859/10

  Also, in cases involving the execution of a final court decision, a continuing situation ends, in principle, on the date of the enforcement of the relevant decision or when an "objective impossibility" to enforce such decision is duly acknowledged (see, for example, Tripcovici v. Romania (dec.), no. 21489/03, 22 September 2009; Kravchenko v. Russia, no. 34615/02, § 34, 2 April 2009, and Babich and Azhogin v. Russia (dec.), no. 9457/09, §§ 48-9, 15 October 2013).
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 9457/09

  BABICH AND AZHOGIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 30859/10

  Also, in cases involving the execution of a final court decision, a continuing situation ends, in principle, on the date of the enforcement of the relevant decision or when an "objective impossibility" to enforce such decision is duly acknowledged (see, for example, Tripcovici v. Romania (dec.), no. 21489/03, 22 September 2009; Kravchenko v. Russia, no. 34615/02, § 34, 2 April 2009, and Babich and Azhogin v. Russia (dec.), no. 9457/09, §§ 48-9, 15 October 2013).
• EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 21489/03

  TRIPCOVICI c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 30859/10

  Also, in cases involving the execution of a final court decision, a continuing situation ends, in principle, on the date of the enforcement of the relevant decision or when an "objective impossibility" to enforce such decision is duly acknowledged (see, for example, Tripcovici v. Romania (dec.), no. 21489/03, 22 September 2009; Kravchenko v. Russia, no. 34615/02, § 34, 2 April 2009, and Babich and Azhogin v. Russia (dec.), no. 9457/09, §§ 48-9, 15 October 2013).
• EGMR, 19.07.2005 - 6638/03

  P.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 30859/10

  Its primary purpose is to maintain legal certainty by ensuring that cases raising issues under the Convention are dealt with in a reasonable time and to prevent the authorities and other persons concerned from being kept in a state of uncertainty for a long period of time (see Sabri Günes v. Turkey [GC], no. 27396/06, §§ 48-9, 29 June 2012, and P.M. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 6638/03, 24 August 2004).

• EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 49969/14

  PINTAR AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

  As the Government asserted, the legislator continued to be bound by the obligation established in the 2016 Decision (see paragraph 89 above) and Mr Jesenko and Ms Jesenko could not be therefore reproached for waiting for the situation to be resolved at the domestic level and for introducing their application once it was apparent that there was no realistic prospect of a favourable outcome or progress for their complaints domestically (see Sokolov and Others v. Serbia (dec.), no. 30859/10 and 6 other applications, 14 January 2014).
• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 54352/14

  LIGHEA IMMOBILIARE S.A.S. ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  À ses yeux, il ne s'agit pas d'une situation continue et, en tout état de cause, les requérants auraient dû introduire leurs griefs « sans retard excessif'une fois qu'il était manifeste qu'il n'y avait pas de perspective réaliste d'une issue favorable ou d'une évolution positive pour leurs griefs au niveau interne (Sokolov et autres c. Serbie (déc.), nos 30859/10 et autres, § 31 in fine, 14 janvier 2014).
• EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 44166/15

  PENATI c. ITALIE

  30859/10 and 6 others, § 31, 14 January 2014).

 
• EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 37882/13

  E.G. c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  La Cour redit que, même s'il existe certes des distinctions évidentes entre différentes violations continues, les requérants doivent, en tout état de cause, introduire leurs griefs « sans retard excessif ", une fois qu'il est évident qu'il n'y a pas de perspective réaliste d'une issue favorable ou d'une évolution positive pour leurs griefs, au niveau interne (Sokolov et autres c. Serbie (déc.), nos 30859/10 et autres, § 31 in fine, 14 janvier 2014).
• EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 58385/13

  LJAJIC v. SERBIA

  30859/10, § 20, 14 January 2014.
• EGMR, 06.03.2018 - 9430/06

  TUPITSINA AND BABOSHINA v. RUSSIA

  30859/10 and 6 others, § 31, 14 January 2014, with further references).
• EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 38695/13

  KOZUL AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  30859/10 and 6 others, § 29, 14 January 2014).
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 19208/13

  POPOVA v. RUSSIA

  30859/10 and 6 others, § 31, 14 January 2014, with further references).
• EGMR, 01.12.2016 - 59097/09

  BOTOMEI AND S.C. BARTOLO PROD COM S.R.L. v. ROMANIA

  While there are, admittedly, obvious distinctions as regards different continuing violations, the Court considers that the applicants must, in any event, introduce their complaints "without undue delay", once it is apparent that there is no realistic prospect of a favourable outcome or progress for their complaints domestically (see, for example, Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan, cited above, § 140 and Aleksandar Sokolov v. Serbia, no. 30859/10, §§ 31-36, 14 January 2014).
• EGMR, 24.01.2023 - 44986/16

  BAYIR c. TÜRKIYE

  Ce sont là, pour la Cour, des éléments déterminants à prendre en considération dès lors que, comme l'exige le principe de subsidiarité, un devoir de diligence et d'initiative s'impose aux requérants souhaitant se plaindre d'un manquement de l'État à respecter ses obligations découlant de la Convention (voir, mutatis mutandis, Sokolov et autres c. Serbie (déc.), no 30859/10, §§ 31-36, 14 janvier 2014).
• EGMR, 29.09.2015 - 33866/11

  BLAGA v. SERBIA