Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ELSANOVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (20)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97

  BAYRAM and YILDIRIM v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 57952/00

  Furthermore, it ought also to protect the authorities and other persons concerned from being under any uncertainty for a prolonged period of time (see Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002, and Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 73065/01

  BULUT and YAVUZ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 57952/00

  Furthermore, it ought also to protect the authorities and other persons concerned from being under any uncertainty for a prolonged period of time (see Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002, and Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III).

• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 40167/06

  SARGSYAN c. AZERBAÏDJAN

  As further examples of prima facie evidence of ownership of or residence on property, the Court has mentioned documents such as land or property titles, extracts from land or tax registers, documents from the local administration, plans, photographs and maintenance receipts as well as proof of mail deliveries, statements of witnesses or any other relevant evidence (see, for instance, Prokopovich v. Russia, no. 58255/00, § 37, ECHR 2004-XI, and Elsanova v. Russia (dec.), no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005).
• EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 22893/05

  RODIC ET AUTRES c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE

  Selon une jurisprudence constante de la Cour, un simple doute quant aux perspectives de succès ne suffit pas à exempter un requérant de l'obligation de porter ses griefs devant l'instance compétente (Elsanova c. Russie (déc.), no 57952/00, 15 novembre 2005).
• EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 58502/11

  ABDYUSHEVA ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Se référant aux arrêts Konstantin Markin c. Russie [GC], no 30078/06, CEDH 2012 (extraits), Puzan c. Ukraine, no 51243/08, 18 février 2010 et à la décision Elsanova c. Russie ((déc.), no 57952/00, 15 novembre 2005), il estime que l'entretien réalisé entre des fonctionnaires d'État et les requérants est une pratique normale, visant non à intimider ces derniers mais à recueillir des informations à jour, en vue de préparer des observations pour la Cour conformément au respect du principe d'égalité des armes.

 
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 72152/13

  CINDRIC AND BESLIC v. CROATIA

  The Court observes that in a number of cases concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of applicants" relatives it has examined the period of time from which the applicant could or should start doubting the effectiveness of a remedy and its bearing on the six-month time-limit provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Sükran Aydin and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 50, 15 December 2009; Grubic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 56094/12, §§ 30-41, 9 June 2015; Zarkovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 75187/12, §§ 24-35, 9 June 2015; Damjanovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 5306/13, §§ 23-34, 25 August 2015; and Vukovic and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 3430/13, §§ 23-34, 25 August 2015).
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 52577/15

  TODOROVIC v. CROATIA

  In other cases it ranged from three and a half years to one year and eight months (in Gojevic-Zrnic and Mancic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 5676/13, § 31, 17 March 2015) and Bayram and Yildirim v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 38587/97, 29 January 2002) it was three and a half years; in Finozhenok v. Russia ((dec.), no. 3025/06, 31 May 2011) it was three years; in Deari and Others v. the Former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia ((dec.), no. 54415/09, § 49, 6 March 2012) it was two and a half years; in Elsanova v. Russia ((dec.), no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005) it was two years; and in Gusar v. the Republic of Moldova and Romania ((dec.), no. 37204/02, § 17, 30 April 2013) it was one year and eight months.
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 27065/05

  ABUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court observes that in a number of cases concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of applicants' relatives it has examined the period of time from which the applicant can or should start doubting the effectiveness of a remedy and its bearing on the six-month limit provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Sükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; and Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 50, 15 December 2009).
• EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 7821/07

  DOVLETUKAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court observes that in a number of cases concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of applicants" relatives it has examined the period of time from which the applicant could or should start doubting the effectiveness of a remedy and its bearing on the six-month time-limit provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Sükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; and Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 50, 15 December 2009).
• EGMR - 37971/02

  [FRE]

  Eu égard au grief relatif à la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention, le requérant a-t-il introduit sa requête dans le délai de six mois fixé à l'article 35 § 1 de la Convention ? Par ailleurs, a-t-il épuisé les voies de recours internes à cet égard (voir Paul et Audrey Edwards c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 46477/99, 7 juin 2001 et Elsanova c.Russie (déc.) no, 57952/00, 15 novembre 2005)?.
• EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 5096/12

  NIKOLIC v. CROATIA

  The Court observes that in a number of cases concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of applicants" relatives it has examined the period of time from which the applicant could or should start doubting the effectiveness of a remedy and its bearing on the six-month time-limit provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Sükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; and Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 50, 15 December 2009).
• EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 54415/09

  DEARI AND OTHERS v.

  The Court observes that in a number of cases concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of applicants" relatives it has examined the period of time from which the applicant can or should start doubting the effectiveness of a remedy and its bearing on the six-month limit provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III; Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002; Sükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; and Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), no. 3025/06, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 37379/05

  SIRKECI c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 5355/15

  LISNYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 2721/11

  KHARAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 3025/06

  FINOZHENOK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 17321/06

  AMUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 30105/05

  PETROIU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 09.04.2015 - 29823/13

  NJEZIC AND STIMAC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 15914/11

  NASKOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 8783/04

  PLYATSEVYY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 29.08.2017 - 27240/09

  GISAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA