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

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 32567/06   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2009,44821
EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 32567/06 (https://dejure.org/2009,44821)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17.02.2009 - 32567/06 (https://dejure.org/2009,44821)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17. Februar 2009 - 32567/06 (https://dejure.org/2009,44821)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,44821) 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 ... (39)Zitiert selbst (8)

  • EGMR, 28.10.1998 - 24760/94

    ASSENOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 32567/06
    In order to comply with the rule, normal recourse should be had by an applicant to remedies which are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria no. 24760/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-VIII).
  • EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 32457/04

    BRECKNELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 32567/06
    The Court recalls its case-law to the effect that where information purportedly casting new light on the circumstances of a death comes into the public domain, a new obligation to investigate the death may arise (see Hackett v. the United Kingdom (no. 34698/04, (dec.) 10 May 2005; and Brecknell v. the United Kingdom, no. 32457/04, §§ 66-67, 27 November 2007).
  • EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 61406/00

    GUREPKA v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 32567/06
    Furthermore, remedies the use of which depends on the discretionary powers of public officials and which are, as a consequence, not directly accessible to the applicant cannot be considered as effective remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Tumilovich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47033/99, 2 June 1999; and Gurepka v. Ukraine, no. 61406/00, § 60, 6 September 2005).
  • EGMR, 06.05.2004 - 33408/03

    DENISOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 32567/06
    Finally, it ensures that, insofar as possible, matters are examined while they are still fresh, before the passage of time makes it difficult to ascertain the pertinent facts and renders a fair examination of the question at issue almost impossible (see Kelly v. the United Kingdom, no. 10626/83, Commission decision of 7 May 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 42, p. 205; Baybora and Others v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 77116/01, 22 October 2002; and Denisov v. Russia (dec.), no. 33408/03, 6 May 2004).
  • EGMR, 22.06.1999 - 47033/99

    TUMILOVICH v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 32567/06
    Furthermore, remedies the use of which depends on the discretionary powers of public officials and which are, as a consequence, not directly accessible to the applicant cannot be considered as effective remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Tumilovich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47033/99, 2 June 1999; and Gurepka v. Ukraine, no. 61406/00, § 60, 6 September 2005).
  • EKMR, 07.05.1985 - 10626/83

    KELLY v. the UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 32567/06
    Finally, it ensures that, insofar as possible, matters are examined while they are still fresh, before the passage of time makes it difficult to ascertain the pertinent facts and renders a fair examination of the question at issue almost impossible (see Kelly v. the United Kingdom, no. 10626/83, Commission decision of 7 May 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 42, p. 205; Baybora and Others v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 77116/01, 22 October 2002; and Denisov v. Russia (dec.), no. 33408/03, 6 May 2004).
  • EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 77116/01

    BAYBORA and OTHERS v. CYPRUS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 32567/06
    Finally, it ensures that, insofar as possible, matters are examined while they are still fresh, before the passage of time makes it difficult to ascertain the pertinent facts and renders a fair examination of the question at issue almost impossible (see Kelly v. the United Kingdom, no. 10626/83, Commission decision of 7 May 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 42, p. 205; Baybora and Others v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 77116/01, 22 October 2002; and Denisov v. Russia (dec.), no. 33408/03, 6 May 2004).
  • EGMR, 10.05.2005 - 34698/04

    HACKETT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 32567/06
    The Court recalls its case-law to the effect that where information purportedly casting new light on the circumstances of a death comes into the public domain, a new obligation to investigate the death may arise (see Hackett v. the United Kingdom (no. 34698/04, (dec.) 10 May 2005; and Brecknell v. the United Kingdom, no. 32457/04, §§ 66-67, 27 November 2007).
  • EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17

    RUSTAVI 2 BROADCASTING COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

    However, the Court reiterates its well-established case-law, according to which remedies that have no precise 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, amongst many other authorities, Galstyan v. Armenia, no. 6986/03, § 39, 15 November 2007; Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.) no. 32567/06, 17 February 2009; Kolu v. Finland (dec.), no. 56463/10, 3 May 2011; and Denisov v. Russia (dec.), no. 33408/03, 6 May 2004).
  • EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 34586/10

    TUCKA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (No. 1)

    Finally, it ensures that, insofar as possible, matters are examined while they are still fresh, before the passage of time makes it difficult to ascertain the pertinent facts and renders a fair examination of the question at issue almost impossible (see Kelly v. the United Kingdom, no. 10626/83, Commission decision of 7 May 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 42, p. 205; Baybora and Others v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 77116/01, 22 October 2002; Denisov v. Russia (dec.), no. 33408/03, 6 May 2004; and Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.) no. 32567/06, 17 February 2009).

    In assessing whether an applicant has complied with Article 35 § 1, it is important to recall that the requirements contained in that Article concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period are closely interrelated (see Galstyan v. Armenia, no. 26986/03, § 39, 15 November 2007; and Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.) no. 32567/06, 17 February 2009).

  • EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 56463/10

    KOLU v. FINLAND

    Finally, it ensures that, insofar as possible, matters are examined while they are still fresh, before the passage of time makes it difficult to ascertain the pertinent facts and renders a fair examination of the question at issue almost impossible (see Kelly v. the United Kingdom, no. 10626/83, Commission decision of 7 May 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 42, p. 205; Baybora and Others v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 77116/01, 22 October 2002; Denisov v. Russia (dec.), no. 33408/03, 6 May 2004; and Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.) no. 32567/06, 17 February 2009).

    In assessing whether an applicant has complied with Article 35 § 1, it is important to recall that the requirements contained in that Article concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period are closely interrelated (see Galstyan v. Armenia, no. 26986/03, § 39, 15 November 2007; and Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.) no. 32567/06, 17 February 2009).

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