Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BERDZENISHVILI c. RUSSIE [Extraits]

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

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (60)

• EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 50178/99

  NIKITINE c. RUSSIE

  The Court has, for example, not accepted that supervisory review is an effective domestic remedy in either the civil or the criminal contexts (see Tumilovich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47033/99, 22 June 1999, and Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II), and it has found that the quashing of a judgment on supervisory review can create problems as to the legal certainty to be afforded to the initial judgment (see Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 62, ECHR 1999-VII, and Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, §§ 56-58, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 17092/04

  KOZLITIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously found that a supervisory review exercised under the Code of Criminal Procedure in force from 1 July 2002 could not be considered an "effective remedy" within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II (extracts), and Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, §§ 42-45, 2 November 2010).
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 21272/03

  SAKHNOVSKI c. RUSSIE

  La Cour confirme qu'elle a toujours refusé de reconnaître le recours en révision comme un « recours effectif'aux fins de l'article 35 de la Convention (Berdzenichvili c. Russie (déc.), no 31697/03, CEDH 2004-II ; Choulepov c. Russie, no 15435/03, § 23, 26 juin 2008 ; Adzhigovich c. Russie, no 23202/05, § 21, 8 octobre 2009, et Shilbergs c. Russie, no 20075/03, § 118, 17 décembre 2009).

 
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68955/11

  DRAGOJEVIC v. CROATIA

  The Court reiterates that the requirements contained in Article 35 § 1 concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period are closely interrelated, since not only are they combined in the same Article, but they are also expressed in a single sentence whose grammatical construction implies such a correlation (see Hatjianastasiou v. Greece, no. 12945/87, Commission decision of 4 April 1990, and Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 25282/06

  DOLENEC v. CROATIA

  The Court observes that the requirements contained in Article 35 § 1 concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period are closely interrelated, since not only are they combined in the same Article, but they are also expressed in a single sentence whose grammatical construction implies such correlation (see Hatjianastasiou v. Greece, no. 12945/87, Commission decision of 4 April 1990, and Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II (extracts).
• EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 43478/11

  HAMBARDZUMYAN v. ARMENIA

  In this sense the requirements contained in Article 35 § 1 concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period are closely interrelated, since not only are they combined in the same Article, but they are also expressed in a single sentence whose grammatical construction implies such a correlation (see Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II (extracts).
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 58331/09

  GREGACEVIC v. CROATIA

  The Court reiterates that the requirements contained in Article 35 § 1 concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period are closely interrelated, since not only are they combined in the same Article, but they are also expressed in a single sentence whose grammatical construction implies such correlation (see Hatjianastasiou v. Greece, no. 12945/87, Commission decision of 4 April 1990, and Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 55759/07

  MARESTI v. CROATIA

  As to the Government's references to the Court's decision in the case of Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II (extracts), the Court notes that a request for an extraordinary review under the Croatian Code of Criminal Procedure may be seen as similar to the cassation appeal under the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure.
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 29431/05

  ZUBKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court notes in this connection that, according to its constant practice, an application for a supervisory review in the context of criminal proceedings has so far not been considered as a remedy to be exhausted under Article 35 § 1 (see, among many others, Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II (extracts); Maayevy v. Russia, no. 7964/07, § 81, 24 May 2011; and Chumakov v. Russia, no. 41794/04, § 125, 24 April 2012).
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 48023/06

  VASENIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court further rejects the Government's non-exhaustion plea as, in accordance with the Court's consistent approach, supervisory review in the criminal cases could not be regarded as "an effective remedy" and, accordingly, the applicant could not be required to resort to it (see Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II).
• EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 40485/08

  PETROVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 42911/08

  ORLOVSKAYA ISKRA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 5766/17

  BOTOYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 02.03.2021 - 45202/14

  KOLESNIKOVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 13274/11

  PAVLOVIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 30.04.2014 - 15253/10

  SIMECKI v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 29525/10

  REMETIN v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 31360/10

  TARBUK v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 41108/10

  BAJIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38280/10

  CAMOVSKI v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 41794/04

  CHUMAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 52943/10

  DAMJANAC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 22.07.2010 - 30604/07

  MELIS c. GRECE
• EGMR, 25.03.2010 - 37193/07

  PARASKEVA TODOROVA c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 27.10.2009 - 45081/04

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

  SAPEYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 31816/08

  STIRMANOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 33586/15

  AYDAROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 25782/11

  KARDOS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 6005/05

  SGAIBA v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 7964/07

  MAAYEVY v. RUSSIA
• 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, 25.06.2009 - 6025/09

  KOVALEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 3698/23

  ZANOTTI v. SAN MARINO
• EGMR, 17.03.2020 - 1882/18

  NASH v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 10810/15

  SMADIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 3315/04

  OAO AFANASIY-PIVO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 46926/09

  BAKRINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 49201/06

  RIZI v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16343/07

  METSAVEER v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 28566/07

  GERASIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 22674/02

  OBLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 35944/03

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

  AMIRYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 74286/01

  LARINE ET LARINA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 7888/03

  NIKOLOVA AND VELICHKOVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 16.09.2004 - 72145/01

  OOO TORGOVYI DOM
• EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 26129/09

  CHAKHMAKHCHYAN AND OGANESYAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.02.2019 - 36158/18

  BAH v. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 22677/11

  KONDAKOVS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 04.06.2009 - 21609/06

  MODRIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 04.06.2009 - 2839/08

  KNAPIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 24128/02

  NENKOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 23324/04

  ULIMAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.04.2016 - 63833/09

  GRUZDA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 7128/05

  KAHRAMAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 23.08.2016 - 29555/11

  JURISIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 9290/02

  DVORAK c. ITALIE