Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 20026/12 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,32405) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SKRZEK v. POLAND
Inadmissible (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
SKRZEK v. POLAND
Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 37235/97
SOFRI et AUTRES contre l'ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 20026/12
However, the obligation under Article 35 requires only that an applicant should have normal recourse to the remedies likely to be effective, adequate and accessible (see Sofri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 37235/97, ECHR 2003-VIII). - EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 57420/00
YOUNGER contre le ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 20026/12
Where no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the period runs from the date of the acts or measures complained of, or from the date of knowledge of that act or its effect or prejudice on the applicant (see Younger v. UK (dec.), no. 57420/00, 21 March 2000, ECHR 2003-I). - EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 21287/02
PRYSTAVSKA contre l'UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 20026/12
Where an applicant has tried a remedy that the Court considers ineffective, the time taken to do so will not interrupt the running of the six-month time-limit, which may lead to the application being rejected as out of time (see Rezgui v. France (dec.), no. 49859/99, ECHR 2000-XI, Kucherenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 41974/98, 4 May 1999; Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002 and Sapeyan v. Armenia, no. 35738/03, § 21, 13 January 2009).
- EGMR, 07.11.2000 - 49859/99
REZGUI contre la FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 20026/12
Where an applicant has tried a remedy that the Court considers ineffective, the time taken to do so will not interrupt the running of the six-month time-limit, which may lead to the application being rejected as out of time (see Rezgui v. France (dec.), no. 49859/99, ECHR 2000-XI, Kucherenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 41974/98, 4 May 1999; Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002 and Sapeyan v. Armenia, no. 35738/03, § 21, 13 January 2009). - EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 35738/03
SAPEYAN v. ARMENIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 20026/12
Where an applicant has tried a remedy that the Court considers ineffective, the time taken to do so will not interrupt the running of the six-month time-limit, which may lead to the application being rejected as out of time (see Rezgui v. France (dec.), no. 49859/99, ECHR 2000-XI, Kucherenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 41974/98, 4 May 1999; Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002 and Sapeyan v. Armenia, no. 35738/03, § 21, 13 January 2009). - EGMR, 04.05.1999 - 41974/98
KUCHERENKO contre l'UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 20026/12
Where an applicant has tried a remedy that the Court considers ineffective, the time taken to do so will not interrupt the running of the six-month time-limit, which may lead to the application being rejected as out of time (see Rezgui v. France (dec.), no. 49859/99, ECHR 2000-XI, Kucherenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 41974/98, 4 May 1999; Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002 and Sapeyan v. Armenia, no. 35738/03, § 21, 13 January 2009).