Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WRIGHT AND BROWN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  WRIGHT AND BROWN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 57420/00

  YOUNGER contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 52334/13

  Thus where no effective remedy is available to an applicant, the time-limit expires six months after the date of the acts or measures about which he complains, 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 and Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 52334/13

  Article 35 § 1 therefore requires that the complaints intended to be made in Strasbourg should first have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance (see, for instance, Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 236; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 144 and 146, ECHR 2010; and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 37, ECHR 1999-I) and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law; and, further, that any procedural means that might prevent a breach of the Convention should have been used (Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 66).
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 52334/13

  Where an applicant has failed to comply with these requirements, his or her application should in principle be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies (see, for example, Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200, and Thiermann and Others v. Norway (dec.), no. 18712/03, 8 March 2007).

 
• EGMR, 08.03.2007 - 18712/03

  THIERMANN AND OTHERS v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 52334/13

  Where an applicant has failed to comply with these requirements, his or her application should in principle be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies (see, for example, Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200, and Thiermann and Others v. Norway (dec.), no. 18712/03, 8 March 2007).
• EGMR, 10.09.2002 - 40461/98

  LEWIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 52334/13

  39647/98 and 40461/98, ECHR 2004 X).
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 35738/03

  SAPEYAN v. ARMENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 52334/13

  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 and Sapeyan v. Armenia, no. 35738/03, § 21, 13 January 2009).
• EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 32567/06

  WILLIAMS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 52334/13

  The requirements contained in Article 35 § 1 concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period are closely interrelated (see Galstyan v. Armenia, no. 26986/03, § 39, 15 November 2007 and Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.) no. 32567/06, 17 February 2009).
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 52334/13

  However, the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust that avenue of redress (see Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 71, and Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 70, 17 September 2009).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 52334/13

  Article 35 § 1 therefore requires that the complaints intended to be made in Strasbourg should first have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance (see, for instance, Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 236; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 144 and 146, ECHR 2010; and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 37, ECHR 1999-I) and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law; and, further, that any procedural means that might prevent a breach of the Convention should have been used (Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 66).
• EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 21287/02

  PRYSTAVSKA contre l'UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 52334/13

  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 and Sapeyan v. Armenia, no. 35738/03, § 21, 13 January 2009).
• EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 50541/08

  Aufschub des Rechts auf Verteidigerbeistand (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren; …

• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 3324/19

  MEHMET ZEKI DOGAN v. TÜRKIYE (No. 2)

  To hold otherwise would risk creating a legal loophole that would enable a procedural shortcoming which had occurred during previous criminal proceedings to be used in ostensibly remedying another shortcoming, thereby giving rise to a situation that would not only impair the practical and effective nature of the right to a fair trial but would also be incompatible with the spirit of the Convention and the Protocols thereto (contrast, as an isolated example, Wright and Brown v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 52334/13, 18 October 2016, where the Court appears to have declined to accept that the examination of the merits of the applicants' complaints by the Court of Appeal, following a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, treated "for all purposes as an appeal by the applicant against conviction", constituted an effective remedy under Article 35 of the Convention: the Court concluded that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies on the grounds that they had not made "normal" use of remedies before the "appropriate domestic body", namely before the trial court in the original proceedings, and therefore, notwithstanding the examination of the merits of their complaints by the Court of Appeal in the context of the above-mentioned extraordinary review process, the applicants' application was declared inadmissible).
• EGMR, 25.01.2022 - 28864/18

  GRIBBEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In the context of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the Court has made it clear that applicants are required to make "normal" use of remedies before the "appropriate domestic body" in order to prevent a breach of the Convention and remedy directly the impugned state of affairs (see Wright and Brown v. the United Kingdom (dec.), 52334/13, § 42, 18 October 2016).
• EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 24344/08

  THOMAS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  It is not clear that in the particular circumstances of the case these complaints could be considered as effective remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 (see Tucka v. the United Kingdom (No. 1), § 15, 34586/10 [dec.] 18 January 2011, Wright and Brown v. the United Kingdom, § 51, 52334/13 [Dec.] 18 October 2016 and Lang and Hastie v. the United Kingdom § 28 19/11 and 36395/11 [dec.] 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 62976/12

  NAK NAFTOGAZ UKRAINY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Moreover, Article 35 § 1 of the Convention requires that applicants make "normal" use of remedies before the "appropriate domestic body" in order to prevent a breach of the Convention and remedy directly the impugned state of affairs (see Wright and Brown v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 52334/13, § 51, 18 October 2016).