Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TUCKA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (No. 1)

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 32567/06

  WILLIAMS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 34586/10

  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, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99

  Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 34586/10

  46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 and 21819/04, § 70, ECHR 2010-...).
• EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 3843/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 34586/10

  46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 and 21819/04, § 70, ECHR 2010-...).

 
• EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 57420/00

  YOUNGER contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 34586/10

  Thus where no effective remedy is available to an applicant, the time-limit expires six months after the date of the acts or measures about which he complains, or after the date of knowledge of that act or its effect or prejudice on the applicant (see Younger v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 57420/00, ECHR 2003-I; and Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 31697/03

  BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 34586/10

  In particular, the Court observes that it has consistently rejected applications in which the applicants have submitted their complaints within six months from the decisions rejecting their requests for reopening of the proceedings on the ground that such decisions could not be considered "final decisions" for the purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II; Riedl-Riedenstein and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 48662/99, 22 January 2002; and Babinsky v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 35833/97, 11 January 2000).
• EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 21287/02

  PRYSTAVSKA contre l'UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 34586/10

  The pursuit of remedies which do not satisfy the requirements of Article 35 § 1 will not be considered by the Court for the purposes of establishing the date of the "final decision" or calculating the starting point for the running of the six-month rule (see Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002; and Sapeyan v. Armenia, no. 35738/03, § 21, 13 January 2009).
• EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 61406/00

  GUREPKA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 34586/10

  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; Gurepka v. Ukraine, no. 61406/00, § 60, 6 September 2005; and Tanase v. Moldova [GC], no. 7/08, § 122, ECHR 2010-...).
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 35738/03

  SAPEYAN v. ARMENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 34586/10

  The pursuit of remedies which do not satisfy the requirements of Article 35 § 1 will not be considered by the Court for the purposes of establishing the date of the "final decision" or calculating the starting point for the running of the six-month rule (see Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002; and Sapeyan v. Armenia, no. 35738/03, § 21, 13 January 2009).
• EGMR, 22.01.2002 - 48662/99

  RIEDL-RIEDENSTEIN and OTHERS v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 34586/10

  In particular, the Court observes that it has consistently rejected applications in which the applicants have submitted their complaints within six months from the decisions rejecting their requests for reopening of the proceedings on the ground that such decisions could not be considered "final decisions" for the purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II; Riedl-Riedenstein and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 48662/99, 22 January 2002; and Babinsky v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 35833/97, 11 January 2000).
• EGMR, 22.06.1999 - 47033/99

  TUMILOVICH v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 34586/10

  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; Gurepka v. Ukraine, no. 61406/00, § 60, 6 September 2005; and Tanase v. Moldova [GC], no. 7/08, § 122, ECHR 2010-...).

• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 44898/10

  JERONOVICS v. LATVIA

  The pursuit of remedies which do not satisfy the requirements of Article 35 § 1 will not be considered by the Court for the purposes of establishing the date of the "final decision" or calculating the starting point for the running of the six-month rule (see Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002; Sapeyan v. Armenia, no. 35738/03, § 21, 13 January 2009; and Tucka v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) (dec.), no. 34586/10, § 14, 18 January 2010).
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 64371/16

  WIEDER AND GUARNIERI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  "As to the necessity of seeking judicial review in the circumstances the Court recalls that extraordinary remedies cannot, as a general rule, be taken into account for the purposes of applying Article 35 § 1 (see Tucka v. the United Kingdom (No. 1) (dec.), no. 34586/10, § 15, 18 January 2011 with further references).
• EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 1497/10

  BETTERIDGE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 and 21819/04, ECHR 2010; and Tucka v. the United Kingdom (No. 1) (dec), no. 34586/10, § 12, 18 January 2010).

 
• EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 63246/10

  NICHOLAS v. CYPRUS

  As regards the Government's claim that the applicant should have lodged an application for the reopening of the appeal in the light of facts which came to light after the judgment had been given, the Court reiterates its extensive case-law to the effect that an application for a retrial or the reopening of the appeal proceedings or for a similar extraordinary remedy cannot, as a general rule, be taken into account for the purposes of applying Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, amongst many authorities, Korzeniak v. Poland, no.56134/08, § 39, 10 January 2017; Kudeshkina v. Russia, no. 29492/05, § 90, 26 February 2009; Rizi v. Albania (dec), no. 49201/06, § 44, 8 November 2011; Kolu v. Finland (dec.), no. 56463/10, 3 May 2011; Vainio v. Finland (dec.), no. 62123/09, 3 May 2011; and Tucka v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34586/10, § 15, 18 January 2011; all with further references).
• EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 12626/13

  MCLEAN AND COLE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Pursuant to that Article, the Court may only deal with a matter where it has been introduced within six months from the date of the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see generally Tucka (No. 1) v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34586/10, 18 January 2011).
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 19064/07

  BERRY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM AND OTHER APPLICATIONS

  46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 and 21819/04, ECHR 2010; and Tucka v. the United Kingdom (No. 1) (dec), no. 34586/10, § 12, 18 January 2010).
• EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 62123/09

  VAINIO v. FINLAND

  Similarly, remedies which 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 Denisov, cited above; Galstyan, cited above, § 39; Williams, cited above; and Tucka v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34586/10, 18 January 2011).
• EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 56463/10

  KOLU v. FINLAND

  Similarly, remedies which 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 Denisov, cited above; Galstyan, cited above, § 39; Williams, cited above; and Tucka v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34586/10, 18 January 2011).
• EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 24344/08

  THOMAS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  It is not clear that in the particular circumstances of the case these complaints could be considered as effective remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 (see Tucka v. the United Kingdom (No. 1), § 15, 34586/10 [dec.] 18 January 2011, Wright and Brown v. the United Kingdom, § 51, 52334/13 [Dec.] 18 October 2016 and Lang and Hastie v. the United Kingdom § 28 19/11 and 36395/11 [dec.] 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 49201/06

  RIZI v. ALBANIA

  Similarly, remedies which 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 Denisov, cited above; Galstyan v. Armenia, no. 26986/03, § 39, 15 November 2007; Williams, cited above; and Tucka v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34586/10, 18 January 2011).
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 29785/07

  H. v. ICELAND
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 51144/07

  SHEIKH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 8195/08

  TONER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 29.09.2015 - 27773/08

  X AND OTHERS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 37187/03

  SARUPICI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND UKRAINE AND GANEA AND GHERSCOVICI v. THE …