Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YARTSEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (6)

• EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 32401/10

  TAGANROG LRO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Such first communication was in principle sufficient to interrupt the running of the six-month period, provided that it was followed up by the submission of the completed application form within the time-limit fixed by the Court (see Yartsev v. Russia (dec.), no. 13776/11, §§ 21-22, 26 March 2013).
• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 33636/09

  MAGOMEDOV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Bien que ce document ait été reçu par la Cour cinq jours après le délai fixé par elle dans sa première lettre, le cachet sur l'enveloppe fait apparaître qu'il a été posté le 26 juin 2013 - date qui doit être prise en compte pour savoir si le représentant du requérant s'est conformé à son obligation (voir, mutatis mutandis, Yartsev c. Russie (déc.), no 13776/11, 26 mars 2013) -, soit avant l'expiration dudit délai.
• EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 30210/06

  RICCI c. ITALIE

  Cette première communication interrompt le cours du délai de six mois (Kemevuako c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 65938/09, § 19, 1er juin 2010, et Yartsev c. Russie (déc.), no 13776/11, § 21, 26 mars 2013).

 
• EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 40044/12

  DMITRIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Their departure to the colony being definitive at the material time and their subsequent return to the same prison being a mere happenstance, the Court reached the conclusion that their transfer marked the end of the situation complained about (see Mitrokhin v. Russia, no. 35648/04, § 36, 24 January 2012, and Yartsev v. Russia (dec.), no. 13776/11, § 30, 26 March 2013).
• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 16208/05

  ZAKHAROV v. RUSSIA

  A first communication of this kind would in principle have interrupted the running of the six-month time-limit (see Yartsev v. Russia (dec.), no. 13776/11, § 21, 26 March 2013, and Kemevuako v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65938/09, § 19, 1 June 2010).
• EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 26073/09

  KARBYSHEV v. RUSSIA

  Their departure to the colony being definitive at the material time and their subsequent return to the same prison being a mere happenstance, the Court reached the conclusion that their transfer marked the end of the situation complained about and that the six-month period should run from the day they left the prison (see Mitrokhin, cited above, § 36, and Yartsev v. Russia (dec.), no. 13776/11, § 30, 26 March 2013).