Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MARTYNETS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MARTYNETS c. RUSSIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (32)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99

  RIABYKH c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2009 - 29612/09

  The supervisory review procedure in force up to 1 February 2003 is presented in the Court's judgment in the case of Ryabykh (see Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 27.03.1962 - 214/56

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2009 - 29612/09

  The term "final decision", which is a starting point of the six-month period, refers to the final decision resulting from the normal frame of exhaustion of domestic remedies in accordance with the generally recognised rules of international law (see De Becker v. Belgium, no. 214/56, Commission decision of 9 June 1958, Yearbook 2, p. 214 at p. 242, and Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 7888/03, 13 March 2007).
• EGMR, 06.05.2004 - 33408/03

  DENISOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2009 - 29612/09

  In the Court's view, this situation created the uncertainty that would have rendered the six-month rule nugatory (see Denisov v. Russia, (dec.), no. 33408/03, 6 May 2004).

• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 30672/03

  SOBELIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2009 - 29612/09

  30672/03, 30673/03, 30678/03, 30682/03, 30692/03, 30707/03, 30713/03, 30734/03, 30736/03, 30779/03, 32080/03 and 34952/03, § 34, 3 May 2007).
• EGMR, 27.02.2019 - 34805/02

  ANGEL VASKOV ANGELOV CONTRE LA BULGARIE ET 16 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2009 - 29612/09

  The term "final decision", which is a starting point of the six-month period, refers to the final decision resulting from the normal frame of exhaustion of domestic remedies in accordance with the generally recognised rules of international law (see De Becker v. Belgium, no. 214/56, Commission decision of 9 June 1958, Yearbook 2, p. 214 at p. 242, and Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 7888/03, 13 March 2007).
• EGMR, 22.06.1999 - 47033/99

  TUMILOVICH v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2009 - 29612/09

  It could not therefore be considered an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Tumilovich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47033/99, 22 June 1999).
• EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 21823/03

  DENISOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2009 - 29612/09

  The provisions governing the supervisory review procedure between 1 February 2003 and 7 January 2008 are presented in the Court's previous judgments and decisions (see Denisov v. Russia, no. 21823/03, 25 January 2007, and Sobelin and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EKMR, 06.10.1983 - 10326/83

  R. v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2009 - 29612/09

  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).
• EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 6025/09

  KOVALEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2009 - 29612/09

  Being outside the normal chain of domestic remedies, such extraordinary procedures are not, as a general rule, taken into account for the calculation of the six-month time-limit (see AO "Uralmash" v. Russia (dec.), no. 13338/03, 10 April 2003, and compare with Kovaleva and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 6025/09, 25 June 2009).
• EGMR, 04.09.2003 - 13338/03

  AO "URALMASH" v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2009 - 29612/09

  Being outside the normal chain of domestic remedies, such extraordinary procedures are not, as a general rule, taken into account for the calculation of the six-month time-limit (see AO "Uralmash" v. Russia (dec.), no. 13338/03, 10 April 2003, and compare with Kovaleva and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 6025/09, 25 June 2009).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 57818/09

  LASHMANKIN v. RUSSIA and 14 other applications

  As regards the supervisory-review procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure in force from 2008 to 2012, the Court has found that, despite certain amendments introduced in 2008, there remained many of the defects identified in the previous versions of that supervisory-review procedure (see Martynets v. Russia (dec.), no. 29612/09, 5 November 2009).
• EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17

  RUSTAVI 2 BROADCASTING COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that, even if the first applicant had lodged its application of 17 November 2016 in compliance with the procedural formalities (see the findings in paragraph 266 above), this application could not have been taken into account for the calculation of the six-month time-limit because it would have been based on Articles 196 and 1991 of the CCP, two extraordinary remedies falling outside the normal chain of domestic remedies envisaged for examination of injunction proceedings (compare, mutatis mutandis, Martynets v. Russia (dec.), no. 29612/09, 5 November 2009, and AO "Uralmash" v. Russia (dec.), no. 13338/03, 10 April 2003).
• EGMR, 20.09.2022 - 45580/15

  TREGUET v. RUSSIA

  Avant le 1er janvier 2012, l'article 381 du code de procédure civile était intitulé « examen du pourvoi en révision'(pour plus de détails sur la procédure de révision applicable à l'époque, voir Martynets (déc.), no 29612/09, 5 novembre 2009, et Trapeznikov et autres c. Russie, nos 5623/09 et 3 autres, §§ 12-15, 5 avril 2016).

  Les réformes postérieures ont progressivement limité l'usage de ce droit par les représentants de l'État susmentionnés (pour plus de détails, voir Martynets c. Russie (déc.), no 29612/09, 5 novembre 2009).

• EGMR, 29.03.2016 - 16899/13

  KOCHEROV AND SERGEYEVA v. RUSSIA

  In the context of Russia, the Court has consistently held that the ultimate judicial remedy to be exhausted prior to lodging an application with the Court was an appeal to a regional court, and that the applicants were not required to submit their cases for re-examination by higher courts by way of a supervisory review procedure, which constituted an extraordinary remedy (see Tumilovich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47033/99, 22 June 1999; Denisov v. Russia (dec.), no. 33408/03, 6 May 2004; and Martynets v. Russia (dec.), no. 29612/09, 5 November 2009).
• EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 58138/09

  MIRONOV v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications

  In the present case, there was no remedy available to make good the procedural defects described above, since the only way to complain of bias on the part of an appellate court judge was through supervisory-review proceedings, an extraordinary remedy characterised by the Court as "uncertain" and "ineffective" (see Martynets v. Russia (dec.), no. 29612/09, 5 November 2009).
• EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 52166/08

  [ENG]

  As regards the supervisory review procedure in force since 7 January 2008, the relevant domestic provisions are summed up in the Court's decision in the case of Martynets v. Russia ((dec.), no. 29612/09, 5 November 2009).
• EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 38951/13

  ABRAMYAN v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

  As regards the multiplicity of supervisory-review instances previously criticised by the Court (see, in particular, Martynets v. Russia (dec.), no. 29612/09, ECHR 2009), the Government indicated that Law no. 353-FZ had remedied this deficiency by limiting the supervisory-review procedure to the Presidium of the Supreme Court.
• 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, 31.01.2017 - 10810/15

  SMADIKOV v. RUSSIA

  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, 02.09.2025 - 60680/16

  VESTRA, PP v. UKRAINE and 6 other applications

  Rn. 46 Thus, irrespective of whether the application for review was dismissed at the preliminary stage or admitted for examination and decided on the merits, there was always a possibility to determine the final point in the domestic litigation (contrast with Martynets v. Russia (dec.), no. 29612/09, 5 November 2009).
• EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 45431/14

  TIMOFEYEV ET POSTUPKIN c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 42911/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.07.2017 - 60393/13

  MCILWRATH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.06.2020 - 27670/07

  KARGINA v. RUSSIA and 6 other applications
• EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 54700/12

  MKHCHYAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.05.2020 - 71160/13

  UZBYAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.04.2016 - 5623/09

  TRAPEZNIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 7319/05

  EYDELMAN AND OTHER "EMIGRANT PENSIONERS" CASES v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.12.2020 - 42301/11

  MASLENNIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 42021/13

  YELISEYEVY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 57019/08

  PEGOV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 34841/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 5497/18

  GALKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 5491/11

  LITVINCHUK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 43603/09

  PULYAYEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 60189/15

  KASHLAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.04.2016 - 10775/09

  SVETLANA VASILYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 46356/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 43330/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 7873/09

  SHEYMAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 55098/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16343/07

  [ENG]