Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  R. c. DANEMARK

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

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  R. v. DENMARK

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

Wird zitiert von ... (15)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 31697/03

  BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA

  Elle renvoie en outre à son abondante jurisprudence selon laquelle un pourvoi en révision ou les recours extraordinaires du même genre ne peuvent pas, en règle générale, être pris en considération pour l'application de la règle de l'article 35 de la Convention (voir, par exemple, R. c. Danemark, no 10326/83, décision de la Commission du 6 octobre 1983, DR 35, p. 218 ; Toumilovitch c. Russie (déc.), no 47033/99, 22 juin 1999).
• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 26986/03

  GALSTYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court further recalls its extensive case-law to the effect that an application for retrial 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, e.g., R. v. Denmark, no. 10326/83, Commission decision of 6 September 1983, Decisions and Reports (DR) 35, p. 218; Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002; and Denisov v. Russia (dec.), no. 33408/03, 6 May 2004).
• EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 28727/11

  [ENG]

  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, 06.05.2004 - 33408/03

  DENISOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court refers, further, to the extensive case-law to the effect that an application for retrial cannot, as a general rule, be taken into account for the purpose of applying Article 35 of the Convention (see, for example, R. v. Denmark, no. 10326/83, Commission decision of 6 October 1983, DR 35, p. 218; Tumilovich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47033/99, 22 June 1999).
• EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 21287/02

  PRYSTAVSKA contre l'UKRAINE

  Toutefois, la Cour rappelle à cet égard que la Convention ne garantit pas le droit d'obtenir la réouverture d'une procédure dans une affaire particulière (R. c. Danemark, no 10326/83, décision de la Commission du 6 octobre 1983, Décisions et rapports (DR) 35, p. 218, et autres références) ; de plus, un requérant n'est pas tenu, en règle générale, 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 (Kiiskinen c. Finlande (déc.), no 26323/95, CEDH 1999-V).
• EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 2641/06

  [ENG]

  The Court recalls that a request for re-opening a case cannot usually be taken into account for the purposes of applying Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, R. v. Denmark, no. 10326/83, Commission decision of 6 September 1983, Decisions and Reports (DR) 35, p. 218; Galstyan v. Armenia, no. 26986/03, § 39, 15 November 2007).
• EGMR, 05.11.2009 - 29612/09

  MARTYNETS v. RUSSIA

  Article 35 does not normally require resort to extraordinary remedies, such as an application for retrial or other means of reopening judicial proceedings in a case (see R. v. Denmark, no. 10326/83, Commission decision of 6 October 1983, Decisions and Reports 35, p. 218, and Kiiskinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 26323/95, ECHR 1999-V).
• EKMR, 27.06.1996 - 20005/92

  PROSA, SJØGREN, AUGSBURG AND LIEDECKE v. DENMARK

  No. 10326/83, Dec.
• EGMR, 22.03.2011 - 38003/04

  BOYAJYAN v. ARMENIA

  As regards the Government's claim that the applicant should have tried to reopen her case following the adoption of Government Decree no. 352-N which introduced compensation procedures, the Court, first of all, points out its extensive case-law to the effect that an application for retrial 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; and Denisov v. Russia (dec.), no. 33408/03, 6 May 2004).
• EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 3698/23

  ZANOTTI v. SAN MARINO

  The Court refers, further, to the extensive case-law to the effect that an application for retrial or similar extraordinary remedies such as requesting a court to review its decision, or requesting the reopening of proceedings, cannot, as a general rule, be taken into account for the purpose of applying Article 35 of the Convention (see, for example, R. v. Denmark, no. 10326/83, Commission decision of 6 October 1983, Decisions and Reports 35, p. 218; Tumilovich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47033/99, 22 June 1999; Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002; Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, 29 January 2004; and Çinar v. Turkey (dec.), no. 28602/95, 13 November 2013) except in special circumstances where, for example, it is established under domestic law that such a request does in fact constitute an effective remedy (see, for example, Shibendra Dev v. Sweden (dec.), no. 7362/10, 21 October 2014).
• EGMR, 23.03.2000 - 44081/98

  PERHIRIN ET AUTRES contre la FRANCE
• EKMR, 16.04.1998 - 28288/95

  PETERSEN v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 07.09.2010 - 8032/06

  JANKOVEC v. SLOVENIA
• EKMR, 06.10.1987 - 12223/86

  ROMOES v. DENMARK
• EKMR, 17.01.1996 - 24738/94

  KAUKONEN v. FINLAND