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

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 22.06.1999 - 47033/99   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1999,31138
EGMR, 22.06.1999 - 47033/99 (https://dejure.org/1999,31138)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 22.06.1999 - 47033/99 (https://dejure.org/1999,31138)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 22. Juni 1999 - 47033/99 (https://dejure.org/1999,31138)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1999,31138) 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 ... (46)Zitiert selbst (1)

  • EGMR, 04.05.1999 - 41974/98

    KUCHERENKO contre l'UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.1999 - 47033/99
    Accordingly, these late rejections of the applicant's applications for a supervisory review are not relevant to the determination of the Court's competence ratione temporis (see, mutatis mutandis, no. 41974/98, Dec. 4.5.99, Fourth Chamber).
  • EGMR, 31.03.2005 - 54632/00

    ZHUKOV v. RUSSIA

    The Government, referring to the case of Tumilovich v. Russia (no. 47033/99, Dec. 22.6.99), submit that the final decision in the applicant's case was the judgment of the Moscow City Court of 7 May 1998 and, accordingly, the applicant failed to lodge the application within the six months time-limit prescribed by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.

    In this context the Court notes that the proceedings, which are at the core of the applicant's complaint, terminated with the final judgment of Moscow City Court of 7 May 1998 (see Nikitin v. Russia, no. 50178/99, § 39, 20 July 2004) and there were no effective domestic remedies available to the applicant following that judgment (see Tumilovich v. Russia, no. 47033/99, Dec. 22.6.99).

  • EGMR, 29.08.2024 - 24622/22

    PASQUINELLI AND OTHERS v. SAN MARINO

    Rn. 48 The Court refers to the extensive case-law to the effect that an application for retrial or similar extraordinary remedies such as requesting a court to review its decision, or requesting the reopening of proceedings, cannot, as a general rule, be taken into account for the purpose of applying Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Tumilovich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47033/99, 22 June 1999; Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002; Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, 29 January 2004; and Çinar v. Turkey (dec.), no. 28602/95, 13 November 2013) except in special circumstances where, for example, it is established under domestic law that such a request does in fact constitute an effective remedy (see, for example, Shibendra Dev v. Sweden (dec.), no. 7362/10, 21 October 2014).
  • 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).
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