Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 10810/15   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2017,3642
EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 10810/15 (https://dejure.org/2017,3642)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 31.01.2017 - 10810/15 (https://dejure.org/2017,3642)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 31. Januar 2017 - 10810/15 (https://dejure.org/2017,3642)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,3642) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (43)Zitiert selbst (13)

  • EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 60189/15

    KASHLAN v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 10810/15
    The Court concludes that neither of the two review decisions in the present case should be taken into consideration for the purpose of applying the six-month rule (compare Kashlan v. Russia (dec.), no. 60189/15, 19 April 2016).
  • EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 10810/15
    In order to comply with the rule, applicants should normally use remedies which are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged (see, for instance, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 96-119, 10 January 2012, and Shishkov v. Russia, no. 26746/05, §§ 84-86, 20 February 2014 on remedies in respect of conditions of detention; Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, §§ 99-105, 11 December 2008, and Gayratbek Saliyev v. Russia, no. 39093/13, § 49, 17 April 2014, on suspensive remedies relating to a risk-of-torture allegations in expulsion or extradition cases; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 69-91, 27 November 2012 concerning remedies relating to absent or inadequate medical care in detention; and Alekseyev v. Russia, nos.
  • EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 4916/07

    Alexejew ./. Russland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 10810/15
    4916/07, 25924/08 and 14599/09, §§ 98-100, 21 October 2010 concerning speedy remedies for halted public assemblies).
  • EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 10810/15
    In order to comply with the rule, applicants should normally use remedies which are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged (see, for instance, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 96-119, 10 January 2012, and Shishkov v. Russia, no. 26746/05, §§ 84-86, 20 February 2014 on remedies in respect of conditions of detention; Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, §§ 99-105, 11 December 2008, and Gayratbek Saliyev v. Russia, no. 39093/13, § 49, 17 April 2014, on suspensive remedies relating to a risk-of-torture allegations in expulsion or extradition cases; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 69-91, 27 November 2012 concerning remedies relating to absent or inadequate medical care in detention; and Alekseyev v. Russia, nos.
  • EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 31697/03

    BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 10810/15
    For instance, remedies which have no time-limits, thus creating uncertainty and rendering nugatory the six-month rule contained in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, are not effective remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 (see Galstyan v. Armenia, no. 26986/03, § 39, 15 November 2007, and Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 38951/13

    ABRAMYAN v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 10810/15
    38951/13 and 59611/13, 12 May 2015).
  • EGMR, 06.05.2004 - 33408/03

    DENISOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 10810/15
    According to the Court's established case-law, an application for supervisory review in civil proceedings was not a remedy under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Tumilovich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47033/99, 22 June 1999, and Denisov v. Russia, (dec.), no. 33408/03, 6 May 2004).
  • EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 26746/05

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 10810/15
    In order to comply with the rule, applicants should normally use remedies which are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged (see, for instance, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 96-119, 10 January 2012, and Shishkov v. Russia, no. 26746/05, §§ 84-86, 20 February 2014 on remedies in respect of conditions of detention; Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, §§ 99-105, 11 December 2008, and Gayratbek Saliyev v. Russia, no. 39093/13, § 49, 17 April 2014, on suspensive remedies relating to a risk-of-torture allegations in expulsion or extradition cases; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 69-91, 27 November 2012 concerning remedies relating to absent or inadequate medical care in detention; and Alekseyev v. Russia, nos.
  • EGMR, 05.11.2009 - 29612/09

    MARTYNETS v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 10810/15
    In the Martynets case ((dec.), no. 29612/09, 12 December 2008), where the Court examined the supervisory-review procedure in force between January 2008 and January 2012, it found that this procedure continued to leave binding judicial decisions open to indefinite challenge, thus generating unacceptable uncertainties as to the final point in the domestic litigation.
  • EGMR, 22.06.1999 - 47033/99

    TUMILOVICH v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 10810/15
    According to the Court's established case-law, an application for supervisory review in civil proceedings was not a remedy under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Tumilovich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47033/99, 22 June 1999, and Denisov v. Russia, (dec.), no. 33408/03, 6 May 2004).
  • EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 39093/13

    GAYRATBEK SALIYEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 6025/09

    KOVALEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 16559/16

    SAKHANOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 04.07.2023 - 11519/20

    GLUKHIN v. RUSSIA

    10810/15, § 49, 31 January 2017, and Ecodefence and Others v. Russia, nos.
  • EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17

    RUSTAVI 2 BROADCASTING COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

    Indeed, the possibility for requesting either the replacement or the lifting of the interim injunctions was not regulated by any specific time-limits and was free to use at any moment providing that certain unforeseen circumstances had emerged, and such features of the remedies in question generate unacceptable uncertainties as to the final point in the proceedings (compare, for instance, Smadikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 10810/15, §§ 39, 41, 46 and 49, 31 January 2017).
  • EGMR, 30.04.2019 - 60921/17

    DMITRIYEVA v. RUSSIA

    She argued that the "review procedure" was not an effective remedy - she referred to Smadikov v. Russia ((dec.), no. 10810/15, 31 January 2017).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht