Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  REZGUI v. FRANCE

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

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  REZGUI contre la FRANCE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (36)

• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13

  LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL

  Nor has it been demonstrated that, at the time when the applicant brought an action for compensation - the most appropriate avenue for establishing any alleged causal link between the initial surgery and Mr Fernandes's tragic death three months later and for shedding light on the extent of the doctors" alleged responsibility for his death - it was obvious that these proceedings would be bound to fail from the outset and hence should not be taken into account for the calculation of the six-month period (see, for example, Musayeva and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 74239/01, 1 June 2006, and Rezgui v. France (dec.), no. 49859/99, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 44898/10

  JERONOVICS v. LATVIA

  It follows that if an applicant has recourse to a remedy which is doomed to failure from the outset, the decision on that appeal cannot be taken into account for the calculation of the six-month period (see, for example, Musayeva and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 74239/01, 1 June 2006, and Rezgui v. France (dec.), no. 49859/99, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 5608/05

  RENOLDE c. FRANCE

  Sur le premier point soulevé par le Gouvernement, la Cour rappelle qu'en vertu de l'article 575 du code de procédure pénale, le pourvoi en cassation de la seule partie civile en l'absence de pourvoi du ministère public n'est recevable que dans certains cas énumérés de manière limitative, dont le Gouvernement ne soutient pas qu'ils seraient présents en l'espèce (cf. Rezgui c. France (déc.), no 49859/99, CEDH 2000-XI).

 
• EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 19750/13

  GROSAM v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Similarly, where a remedy was doomed to failure from the outset the Court has held that those proceedings cannot be taken into account for the purposes of calculating the six-month period (see, for example, Rezgui v. France (dec.), no. 49859/99, ECHR 2000-XI, and Rybczynski and Rybczynska v. Poland (dec.), no. 8766/11, § 24, 16 October 2018).
• EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 49969/14

  PINTAR AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

  Having regard to the lack of an effective alternative (see paragraphs 100-102 above), the Court considers that none of the sets of proceedings instituted by Mr Kotnik, Mr Peterlin, Mr Jukic and Ms Logar can be regarded as inappropriate or misconceived avenues which could at the material time be considered as bound to fail from the outset and hence should not be taken into account for the calculation of the six-month period (see, for example, Lopes de Sousa Fernandes, cited above, § 138; and by contrast, Musayeva and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 74239/01, 1 June 2006; and Rezgui v. France (dec.), no. 49859/99, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 25057/11

  CALIN ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  L'usage de pareils recours a des conséquences sur la détermination de la « décision définitive'et donc sur la computation du point de départ du délai de six mois (voir, par exemple, Kucherenko c. Ukraine (déc.), no 41974/98, 4 mai 1999, et Rezgui c. France (déc.), no 49859/99, CEDH-XI).
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02

  PAVLENKO v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates in that connection that where an applicant has tried a remedy that the Court considers inappropriate, the time taken to do so will normally not interrupt the running of the six-month time-limit, which may lead to the application being rejected as out of time (see Rezgui v. France (dec.), no. 49859/99, ECHR 2000-XI, and the Zenin decision, cited above).
• EGMR, 09.05.2023 - 53030/19

  KITANOVSKA AND BARBULOVSKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  Referring in particular to the cases of Nuredini v. North Macedonia ((dec.) [Committee], no. 38823/14, 7 July 2020), Gavrilov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ((dec.), no. 7837/10, 1 July 2014), and Rezgui v. France ((dec.), no. 49859/99, ECHR 2000-XI), the Government contended that objections that had not been lodged through a lawyer were not an effective remedy for the purpose of the applicants' complaints.
• EGMR, 26.10.2021 - 34591/19

  TOPLAK AND MRAK v. SLOVENIA

  Even though these proceedings proved to be incapable of offering any redress, in view of the Supreme Court's position (see paragraphs 14 and 22 above), it has not been demonstrated by the Government that they could be regarded as constituting inappropriate or misconceived avenues which could be considered as bound to fail from the outset and hence should not be taken into account for the calculation of the six-month period (see, for example, Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, § 138, 19 December 2017; also contrast Musayeva and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 74239/01, 1 June 2006, and Rezgui v. France (dec.), no. 49859/99, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 20.09.2022 - 7833/12

  POPADIC v. SERBIA

  The proceedings were eventually terminated on 29 August 2009 (see paragraph 57 above), the part of the proceedings concerning the appeal on points of law having been erroneously pursued and excluded (see paragraph 58 above; see also Rezgui v. France (dec.), no. 49859/99, ECHR 2000-XI, and Kostovska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 44353/02, § 36, 15 June 2006).
• EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 48532/11

  NIHAT SOYLU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 59431/11

  TRAINA c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 61521/08

  GAUER ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 51019/08

  ALBOREO c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 10.04.2006 - 18002/02

  GORGIEVSKI v.
• EGMR, 08.02.2005 - 52621/99

  SCHWARKMANN c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 55951/16

  IANNINI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 29.09.2020 - 47271/16

  AMBROSIO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 38823/14

  NUREDINI v. NORTH MACEDONIA
• EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 17874/13

  BENCAU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 03.07.2018 - 78943/12

  ILIE c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 29308/06

  DESRIAUX c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 07.02.2023 - 5459/21

  PIEDADE FRANCISCO c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 43965/08

  POTOCNIK v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 31.01.2012 - 24431/10

  ZORKO v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 20441/08

  FILKOVIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 22.02.2011 - 44117/06

  VECERNIK v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 48093/07

  LYNNIK-LORENZI c. MONACO
• EGMR, 13.11.2006 - 37018/03

  KOCAROVA v.
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 44353/02

  KOSTOVSKA v.
• EGMR, 23.04.2019 - 79037/12

  KARADZA AND VASKOV v. NORTH MACEDONIA
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 8766/11

  RYBCZYNSKI AND RYBCZYNSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 20026/12

  SKRZEK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 16472/04

  ULYANOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 19083/08

  CAROLINEX SP. Z O.O. v. POLAND
• EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 30191/11

  TRIEU ET LAM c. BELGIQUE