Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ARSLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ARSLAN v. TURKEY

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (34)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 11157/04

  ANCHUGOV v. RUSSIA

  The date of introduction is accordingly the date on which the first letter was written by the applicant or, where there is an undue delay between this date and the date on which the letter was posted, the Court may decide that the date of posting shall be considered to be the date of introduction (see Gaspari v. Slovenia, no. 21055/03, § 35, 21 July 2009; Calleja v. Malta (dec.), no. 75274/01, 18 March 2004; Arslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36747/02, ECHR 2002-X (extracts); and Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, § 32, 14 October 2010).
• EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 21055/11

  PIROZZI c. BELGIQUE

  Dans le cas contraire, la date d'introduction de la requête était celle du cachet de la poste, et non celle qui figurait dans la lettre ou le formulaire de requête (Arslan c. Turquie (déc.), no 36747/02, CEDH 2002-X (extraits)).
• EGMR, 05.06.2007 - 43256/04

  BAGRIYANIK c. TURQUIE

  La Cour a déjà examiné ce genre de situation et a dit que le délai de six mois court à partir de la fin de la garde à vue (voir, parmi d'autres, Arslan c. Turquie (déc.), no 36747/02, CEDH 2002-X (extraits)).

• EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 28727/11

  [ENG]

  The date of introduction was accordingly the date on which the first letter was written by the applicant or, where there was an undue delay between this date and the date on which the letter was posted, the Court could decide that the postage date should be considered to be the date of introduction (see Gaspari v. Slovenia, no. 21055/03, § 35, 21 July 2009; Calleja v. Malta (dec.), no. 75274/01, 18 March 2004; Arslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36747/02, ECHR 2002-X (extracts); and Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, § 32, 14 October 2010).
• EGMR, 12.04.2012 - 30002/08

  Durchsuchung von Redaktionsräumen

  Elle rappelle que la date de l'introduction d'une requête est celle de la première lettre par laquelle le requérant formule, ne serait-ce que sommairement, les griefs qu'il entend soulever (voir par exemple Arslan c. Turquie (déc.), no 36747/02, CEDH 2002-X (extraits) et Taffin et Contribuables Associés c. France, no 42396/04, § 22, 18 février 2010).
• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 65938/09

  KEMEVUAKO v. THE NETHERLANDS

  If that communication is postmarked more than one day later, it is the date of the postmark - rather than the date featuring on the letter or application form - that will be considered as the date of introduction (see Arslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36747/02, ECHR 2002-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 27630/07

  [ENG]

  However, the Court has declared applications inadmissible where it has detected a significant discrepancy between the date of writing the application form and the date of posting it, if the latter fell outside the six-month time-limit (see, for example, Arslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36747/02, 21 November 2002).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 32299/08

  [ENG]

  In the absence of explanations of an interval, of at least several days, between the date on which the initial submission was written and the date on which it was posted, the latter is to be considered the date of introduction of an application (see Arslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36747/02, decision of 21 November 2002, ECHR 2002-X (extracts) and Ruzicková v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 15630/05, 16 September 2008), and not the date stamp indicating the application's receipt by the Court (Kipritçi v. Turkey, no. 14294/04, § 18, 3 June 2008).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 2611/07

  [ENG]

  In the absence of explanations of an interval, of at least several days, between the date on which the initial submission was written and the date on which it was posted, the latter is to be considered the date of introduction of an application (see Arslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36747/02, decision of 21 November 2002, ECHR 2002-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 4260/04

  ANDRUSHKO v. RUSSIA

  The date of introduction is accordingly the date on which the first letter was written by the applicant or, where there is an undue delay between this date and the date on which the letter was posted, the Court may decide that the postage date shall be considered to be the date of introduction (see Gaspari v. Slovenia, no. 21055/03, § 35, 21 July 2009; Calleja v. Malta (dec.), no. 75274/01, 18 March 2004; and Arslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36747/02, ECHR 2002-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 21055/03

  GASPARI v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 05.03.2024 - 60569/09

  LEKA v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 28357/11

  AVDIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
• EGMR, 25.09.2003 - 62393/00

  KADIKIS contre la LETTONIE (n° 2)
• EGMR, 27.02.2014 - 5699/11

  LUCIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 1401/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 14356/08

  GUILL c. LUXEMBOURG
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 1668/03

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 42396/04

  TAFFIN ET CONTRIBUABLES ASSOCIES c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 29.10.2019 - 48171/10

  AKVARDAR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 31876/11

  SHIRINOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 20007/09

  BOELENS ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 15.03.2011 - 42195/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 28.09.2010 - 29732/08

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 43550/04

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 41746/04

  CEVEN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 26.02.2008 - 15323/03

  EROL c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 20.11.2007 - 6094/03

  ELCICEK ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 26773/05

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 4738/04

  PAIS c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 09.09.2014 - 5358/14

  X AND Y v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 20455/04

  TUGARINOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.06.2004 - 49781/99

  FLORICA contre la ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 18.03.2004 - 75274/01

  CALLEJA v. MALTA