Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 45808/18 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2021,54591) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
M.Ö. v. TURKEY
Inadmissible (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
M.Ö. v. TURKEY
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 10.11.2009 - 21425/06
Nichteinhaltung der 6-Monatsfrist des Artikels 35 Abs. 1 MRK
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 45808/18
Where the applicant has designated a lawyer to represent him, as in the instant case, the six-month period runs from the date on which the applicant's lawyer was served with the final decision, notwithstanding the fact that the decision might only have been notified personally to the applicant later (see Otto v. Germany (dec.), no. 21425/06, 10 November 2009; Çelik v. Turkey (dec.), no. 52991/99, ECHR 2004-X; and Pejic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 66894/01, 19 December 2002). - EGMR, 19.12.2002 - 66894/01
PEJIC v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 45808/18
Where the applicant has designated a lawyer to represent him, as in the instant case, the six-month period runs from the date on which the applicant's lawyer was served with the final decision, notwithstanding the fact that the decision might only have been notified personally to the applicant later (see Otto v. Germany (dec.), no. 21425/06, 10 November 2009; Çelik v. Turkey (dec.), no. 52991/99, ECHR 2004-X; and Pejic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 66894/01, 19 December 2002). - EGMR, 11.06.2019 - 1964/07
KARALAR v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 45808/18
While the Court is mindful of the inherent difficulties the counsel might have faced in following up with his client's cases, it is not prepared to accept that the mere fact of being in detention was per se sufficient to absolve him from professional duty of diligence towards his clients (see, mutatis mutandis, Karalar v. Turkey (dec.), no. 1964/07, § 64, 11 June 2019).