Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RUZICKOVÁ c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97

  BAYRAM and YILDIRIM v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2008 - 15630/05

  La règle des six mois a pour objet d'assurer la sécurité juridique et de veiller à ce que les affaires soulevant des questions au regard de la Convention soient examinées dans un délai raisonnable, tout en évitant aux autorités et autres personnes concernées d'être pendant longtemps dans l'incertitude (voir, entre autres, Bayram et Yıldırım c. Turquie (déc.), no 38587/97, CEDH 2002-III ; P.M. c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 6638/03, 24 août 2004).

• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 32299/08

  JOVANOVIC v. SERBIA

  In the absence of explanations of an interval, of at least several days, between the date on which the initial submission was written and the date on which it was posted, the latter is to be considered the date of introduction of an application (see Arslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36747/02, decision of 21 November 2002, ECHR 2002-X (extracts) and Ruzicková v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 15630/05, 16 September 2008), and not the date stamp indicating the application's receipt by the Court (Kipritçi v. Turkey, no. 14294/04, § 18, 3 June 2008).
• EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 1401/08

  ANDELKOVIC v. SERBIA

  Such first communication will interrupt the running of the six-month period (see Arslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36747/02, 21 November 2002, ECHR 2002-X (extracts), and Ruzicková v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 15630/05, 16 September 2008).
• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 31876/11

  SHIRINOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  In the absence of any explanation for an interval of more than one day between the date on which the first communication was written and the date on which it was posted (that is, the date of the postmark recording the date on which the application was sent to the Court), the latter is to be regarded as the date of introduction of an application (see Arslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36747/02, ECHR 2002-X; Ruzicková v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 15630/05, 16 September 2008; and Kemevuako v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65938/09, 1 June 2010).

 
• EGMR, 28.09.2010 - 38354/06

  BENET PRAHA, SPOL. S R.O. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  The applicant company's first letter introducing the application, dated 16 September 2006, was sent by fax on 18 September 2006, which date must be considered to be the date on which the present application was lodged (see Ruzicková v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 15630/05, 16 September 2008, and Otto, cited above).
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 38333/06

  BENET CZECH, SPOL. S R.O. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Actually, the applicant company's first letter introducing the application, dated 16 September 2006, was sent by fax on 18 September 2006, which date must be considered to be the date on which the present application was lodged (see Ruzicková v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 15630/05, 16 September 2008, and Otto, cited above).
• EGMR, 09.09.2014 - 5358/14

  X AND Y v. GEORGIA

  The Court further notes, in line with its well-established case-law, that for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the date of introduction of the application is as a rule the date of the postmark recording the date on which the application was sent (see Korkmaz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 42589/98, 5 September 2002; Arslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36747/02, ECHR 2002-X (extracts); Ruzicková v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 15630/05, 16 September 2008; Gaspari v. Slovenia, no. 21055/03, § 35, 21 July 2009; and Brezec v. Croatia, no. 7177/10, §§ 28-30, 18 July 2013).