Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PRYSTAVSKA contre l'UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PRYSTAVSKA v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (45)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 42052/98

  LAKATOS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 21287/02

  The rule in Article 35 § 1 is based on the assumption that there is an effective domestic remedy available in respect of the alleged breach of an individual's Convention rights (see Lakatos v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 42052/98, 23 October 2001, unreported).
• EKMR, 06.10.1983 - 10326/83

  R. v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 21287/02

  However, it recalls in this connection that the Convention does not guarantee a right to re-open proceedings in a particular case (cf. No. 10326/83, dec. 6.10.83, D.R. 35, p. 218 with further references); nor is an applicant normally required to avail himself of an extraordinary remedy for the purposes of the exhaustion rule under Article 35 § 1 (see Kiiskinen v. Finland (dec.) no. 26323/95, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 21287/02

  The purpose of Article 35 § 1 is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, inter alia, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 21287/02

  However, inherent to the Convention are the notions of legal certainty and the rule of law (see e.g. the Marckx v. Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, § 58, and the Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v Greece judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, § 49).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 21287/02

  However, inherent to the Convention are the notions of legal certainty and the rule of law (see e.g. the Marckx v. Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, § 58, and the Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v Greece judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, § 49).

• EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 25851/09

  TARANTINO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  It follows that the pursuit of such remedies 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, for example, Kucherenko v. Unkraine (dec.), no. 41974/98, 4 May 1999, and Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002).
• EGMR, 13.06.2019 - 77633/16

  MARCELLO VIOLA c. ITALIE (N° 2)

  Elle rappelle avoir déjà jugé que les requérants ne sont pas tenus de faire usage de ce type de remèdes extraordinaires aux fins du respect de la règle énoncée à l'article 35 § 1 de la Convention (Sofri et autres c. Italie (déc.), no 37235/97, CEDH 2003-VIII, Prystavska c. Ukraine (déc.), no 21287/02, CEDH 2002-X).
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 44898/10

  JERONOVICS v. LATVIA

  The pursuit of remedies which do not satisfy the requirements of Article 35 § 1 will not be considered by the Court for the purposes of establishing the date of the "final decision" or calculating the starting point for the running of the six-month rule (see Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002; Sapeyan v. Armenia, no. 35738/03, § 21, 13 January 2009; and Tucka v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) (dec.), no. 34586/10, § 14, 18 January 2010).

 
• EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17

  RUSTAVI 2 BROADCASTING COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  However, an applicant is not obliged to have recourse to remedies that are inadequate or ineffective (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 67, Reports 1996-IV), and the pursuit of such remedies will unavoidably 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 (compare, for example, Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002, and Kucherenko v. Unkraine (dec.), no. 41974/98, 4 May 1999).
• EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 12211/09

  UCHE c. SUISSE

  La Cour rappelle d'emblée que, sauf dans des circonstances particulières, un requérant n'est pas tenu de se prévaloir d'un recours extraordinaire aux fins de la règle de l'épuisement des voies de recours internes énoncée à l'article 35 § 1 de la Convention (Prystavska c. Ukraine (déc.), no 21287/02, CEDH 2002-X, et C.M. c. Suisse, no 7318/09, § 31, 17 janvier 2017).
• EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 25057/11

  CALIN ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  La Cour rappelle que rien n'impose à un requérant d'user de recours qui ne sont ni adéquats ni effectifs (Akdivar et autres c. Turquie, 16 septembre 1996, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1996-IV, § 67, et Prystavska c. Ukraine (déc.), no 21287/02, CEDH 2002-X).
• EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 28727/11

  KUDESHKINA v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  Applications for reopening of proceedings or similar extraordinary remedies cannot, as a general rule, be taken into account for the purposes of applying Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, R. v. Denmark, no. 10326/83, Commission decision of 6 September 1983, Decisions and Reports 35, p. 218; Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002; Denisov v. Russia (dec.), no. 33408/03, 6 May 2004; Martynets v. Russia (dec.), no. 29612/09, ECHR 2009; and Boyajyan v. Armenia, no. 38003/04, § 38, 22 March 2011).
• EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 7318/09

  C.M. c. SUISSE

  La Cour rappelle d'emblée que, sauf dans des circonstances particulières, un requérant n'est pas tenu de se prévaloir d'un recours extraordinaire aux fins de la règle de l'épuisement des voies de recours internes énoncée à l'article 35 § 1 de la Convention (Prystavska c. Ukraine (déc.), no 21287/02, CEDH 2002-X).
• EGMR, 25.03.2008 - 62605/00

  PETROL v. UKRAINE

  The court of final instance in ordinary civil proceedings before 29 June 2001 was the Regional Court, which dealt with cases in the course of cassation proceedings (see Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, ECHR 2002-X, and Kucherenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 41974/98, 4 May 1999).
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 19064/07

  BERRY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM AND OTHER APPLICATIONS

  The pursuit of remedies which do not satisfy the requirements of Article 35 § 1 will not be considered by the Court for the purposes of establishing the date of the "final decision" or calculating the starting point for the running of the six-month rule (see Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002; Sapeyan v. Armenia, no. 35738/03, § 21, 13 January 2009; and and Tucka, cited above, § 14).
• EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 44853/10

  TONIOLO v. SAN MARINO AND ITALY
• EGMR, 27.10.2009 - 45081/04

  STEPANYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 35738/03

  SAPEYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 60477/12

  GROBELNY v. POLAND
• EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 59431/11

  TRAINA c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 52334/13

  WRIGHT AND BROWN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 62123/09

  VAINIO v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 56463/10

  KOLU v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 34586/10

  TUCKA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (No. 1)
• EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 3698/23

  ZANOTTI v. SAN MARINO
• EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 55951/16

  IANNINI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 29.09.2020 - 47271/16

  AMBROSIO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 17.03.2020 - 1882/18

  NASH v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 17874/13

  BENCAU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 03.07.2018 - 78943/12

  ILIE c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 08.09.2015 - 5159/14

  WIND TELECOMUNICAZIONI S.P.A. c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 49201/06

  RIZI v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 21798/05

  KADUK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 35944/03

  GASPARYAN v. ARMENIA (No. 1)
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 31553/03

  AMIRYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 18.05.2006 - 9852/03

  HUMMATOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 12.05.2011 - 11944/05

  LIPISVITSKA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 22.02.2011 - 41119/07

  RUDYSH v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 15935/06

  KLIMENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 38478/06

  BARC COMPANY LIMITED v. MALTA
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 30853/04

  SHAPOSHNIKOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 04.06.2009 - 2839/08

  KNAPIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 9164/02

  ICHIM c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 24128/02

  NENKOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 5788/02

  BITKIVSKA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 62198/16

  SHVETS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 20026/12

  SKRZEK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 7128/05

  KAHRAMAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 15808/04

  LYUBCHENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 9290/02

  DVORAK c. ITALIE