Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 16403/07 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,15597) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
YANCHEV v. BULGARIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 37, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
Struck out of the list (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (7)
- EGMR, 31.03.1992 - 18020/91
X c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 16403/07
The Court notes that in a number of cases in which an applicant died in the course of the proceedings it has taken into account the statements of the applicant's heirs or of close relatives expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings (see, among other authorities, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, §§ 37-38, Series A no. 35; X v. France, no. 18020/91, § 26, 31 March 1992 and Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 2, Series A no. 281-A), or the existence of a legitimate interest claimed by a person wishing to pursue the application (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII). - EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 2476/02
THÉVENON c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 16403/07
On the other hand, it has been the Court's practice to strike applications out of the list of cases in the absence of any heir or close relative who has expressed the wish to pursue an application and in the absence of any legitimate interest to pursue the proceedings (see, among other authorities, Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 287; Öhlinger v. Austria, no. 21444/93, Commission's report of 14 January 1997, § 15; Thévenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-III and Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, 30 March 2009). - EGMR, 30.03.2009 - 19324/02
Léger ./. Frankreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 16403/07
On the other hand, it has been the Court's practice to strike applications out of the list of cases in the absence of any heir or close relative who has expressed the wish to pursue an application and in the absence of any legitimate interest to pursue the proceedings (see, among other authorities, Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 287; Öhlinger v. Austria, no. 21444/93, Commission's report of 14 January 1997, § 15; Thévenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-III and Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, 30 March 2009).
- EKMR, 02.07.1996 - 21444/93
ÖHLINGER v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 16403/07
On the other hand, it has been the Court's practice to strike applications out of the list of cases in the absence of any heir or close relative who has expressed the wish to pursue an application and in the absence of any legitimate interest to pursue the proceedings (see, among other authorities, Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 287; Öhlinger v. Austria, no. 21444/93, Commission's report of 14 January 1997, § 15; Thévenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-III and Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, 30 March 2009). - EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87
RAIMONDO v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 16403/07
The Court notes that in a number of cases in which an applicant died in the course of the proceedings it has taken into account the statements of the applicant's heirs or of close relatives expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings (see, among other authorities, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, §§ 37-38, Series A no. 35; X v. France, no. 18020/91, § 26, 31 March 1992 and Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 2, Series A no. 281-A), or the existence of a legitimate interest claimed by a person wishing to pursue the application (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII). - EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75
DEWEER c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 16403/07
The Court notes that in a number of cases in which an applicant died in the course of the proceedings it has taken into account the statements of the applicant's heirs or of close relatives expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings (see, among other authorities, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, §§ 37-38, Series A no. 35; X v. France, no. 18020/91, § 26, 31 March 1992 and Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 2, Series A no. 281-A), or the existence of a legitimate interest claimed by a person wishing to pursue the application (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII). - EGMR, 25.03.1994 - 17116/90
SCHERER v. SWITZERLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 16403/07
On the other hand, it has been the Court's practice to strike applications out of the list of cases in the absence of any heir or close relative who has expressed the wish to pursue an application and in the absence of any legitimate interest to pursue the proceedings (see, among other authorities, Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 287; Öhlinger v. Austria, no. 21444/93, Commission's report of 14 January 1997, § 15; Thévenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-III and Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, 30 March 2009).
- EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 47039/11
HRISTOZOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
Conversely, the Court and the former Commission have struck applications out of their lists in situations where the applicants have died in the course of the proceedings and either no one has come forward with a wish to pursue the application (see, for example, Öhlinger v. Austria, no. 21444/93, Commission's report of 14 January 1997, unreported, § 15; Ibish v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 29893/06, 31 January 2011; and Korzhenevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 36799/05, 28 June 2011), or the persons who have expressed such a wish are not heirs or sufficiently close relatives of the applicants, and cannot demonstrate that they have any other legitimate interest in pursuing the application (see Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 287; S.G. v. France (striking out), no. 40669/98, §§ 6 and 16, 18 September 2001; Thévenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-III; Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, §§ 47-51, 30 March 2009; Mitev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 42758/07, 29 June 2010; and Yanchev v. Bulgaria (dec.) [Committee], no. 16403/07, 20 March 2012).