Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=10.11.2005&Aktenzeichen=21784/04
Timestamp: 2019-05-23 10:14:31
Document Index: 141659741

Matched Legal Cases: ['EGMR', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 37', 'Art. 37', 'EGMR', '§ 2', '§ 50', '§ 2', 'EGMR', '§ 1', '§ 27', '§ 64', 'EGMR', 'EGMR', 'EGMR']

EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 21784/04 - dejure.org
EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 21784/04
https://dejure.org/2005,59220
EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 21784/04 (https://dejure.org/2005,59220)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10.11.2005 - 21784/04 (https://dejure.org/2005,59220)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10. November 2005 - 21784/04 (https://dejure.org/2005,59220)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,59220) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
MURUVVET KUCUK c. TURQUIE
Art. 3, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. c MRK
Radiation du rôle (poursuite de l'examen de la requête non justifiée) (französisch)
EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 21784/04
It has also struck applications out of its list in application of this provision on the ground that the applicant in question had died in the course of the proceedings and that no heir or close member of their family had expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings (see, for example, Gladkowski v. Poland (striking out), no. 29697/96, 14 March 2000, and Sevgi ErdoÄ?an v. Turkey (striking out), no. 28492/95, 29 April 2003) or that the heir who expressed such an intention had no legitimate interest in that regard (see S.G. v. France (striking out), no. 40669/98, 18 September 2001), or, in the light of a lack of diligence on the part of the applicant (see, for example, Hun v. Turkey (striking out), no. 5142/04, 10 November 2005, and Mürrüvet Küçük v. Turkey (striking out), no. 21784/04, 10 November 2005) or his or her lawyer (see, for example, Falkovych v. Ukraine (striking out), no. 64200/00, 4 October 2005; and Fleury v. France (dec.), no. 2361/03, 6 July 2006), or on the ground that the applicant had failed to appoint a lawyer to represent him pursuant to Rule 36 §§ 2 and 4 (a) of its Rules of Court (see Grimaylo v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 69364/01, 7 February 2006).
In Anwendung dieser Vorschrift hat er auch Individualbeschwerden in seinem Register gestrichen, weil der betreffende Beschwerdeführer im Verlauf des Verfahrens gestorben war und kein Erbe oder enges Familienmitglied den Wunsch geäußert hatte, das Verfahren fortzuführen (siehe zum Beispiel Gladkowski ./. Polen (Streichung), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 29697/96, 14. März 2000, und Sevgi ErdoÄ?an ./. Türkei (Streichung), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 28492/95, 29. April 2003), weil der Erbe, der eine Fortführungsabsicht geäußert hatte, diesbezüglich kein berechtigtes Interesse hatte (siehe S.G. ./. Frankreich (Streichung), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 40669/98, 18. September 2001), wegen mangelnder Sorgfalt des Beschwerdeführers (siehe z. B. Hun ./. Türkei (Streichung), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 5142/04, 10. November 2005, und Mürrüvet Küçük ./. Türkei (Streichung), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 21784/04, 10. November 2005) oder seines Anwalts (siehe z. B. Falkovych ./. Ukraine (Streichung), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 64200/00, 4. Oktober 2005; und Fleury ./. Frankreich (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 2361/03, 6. Juli 2006), oder weil der Beschwerdeführer entgegen Artikel 36 Abs. 2 und Abs. 4 Buchstabe a der Verfahrensordnung keinen Rechtsanwalt mit seiner Vertretung beauftragt hatte (siehe Grimaylo ./. Ukraine (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 69364/01, 7. Februar 2006).".
It has also struck applications out of its list on the basis of this provision on the ground that the applicant in question had died in the course of the proceedings and that no heir or close member of their family had expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings (see, for example, Gladkowski v. Poland (striking out), no. 29697/96, 14 March 2000; and Sevgi Erdogan v. Turkey (striking out), no. 28492/95, 29 April 2003) or that the heir who expressed such an intention had no legitimate interest in that regard (see Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, § 50, 30 March 2009; and S.G. v. France (striking out), no. 40669/98, 18 September 2001), or, in the light of a lack of diligence on the part of the applicant (see, for example, Hun v. Turkey (striking out), no. 5142/04, 10 November 2005; and Mürrüvet Küçük v. Turkey (striking out), no. 21784/04, 10 November 2005) or his or her lawyer (see, for example, Falkovych v. Ukraine (striking out), no. 64200/00, 4 October 2005; and Fleury v. France (dec.), no. 2361/03, 6 July 2006), or on the ground that the applicant had failed to appoint a lawyer to represent him pursuant to Rule 36 §§ 2 and 4 (a) of its Rules of Court (see Grimaylo v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 69364/01, 7 February 2006).
EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 56080/10
The Court notes that it has struck off past applications from its list of cases on the basis of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention because of, among other reasons, lack of diligence on the part of the applicants (see, for example, Hun v. Turkey (dec.), no. 5142/04, 10 November 2005; Mürrüvet Küçük v. Turkey (dec.), no. 21784/04, 10 November 2005; and Goryachev v. Russia (dec.), no. 34886/06, §§ 27-30 and 42-43, 9 April 2013; as well as Engwer v. Germany (dec.), no. 76871/12, 25 March 2014), and/or their lawyers (see, for example, Falkovych v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 64200/00, 4 October 2005; Fleury v. France (dec.), no. 2361/03, 6 July 2006; and Yüksel Erdogan and Others v. Turkey, no. 57049/00, §§ 64-65, 15 February 2007).
In particular the Court had previously considered appropriate to strike applications from the list of cases in the light of lack of diligence on the part of applicants (see, for example, Hun v. Turkey (striking out), no. 5142/04, 10 November 2005, and Mürrüvet Küçük v. Turkey (striking out), no. 21784/04, 10 November 2005).
EGMR, 26.09.2017 - 6534/11
FABRIZI ET NAZZICONE c. ITALIE
La Cour a déjà rayé des requêtes du rôle en application de ce texte au regard du manque de diligence du requérant (voir, par exemple, les arrêts Hun c. Turquie (radiation), no 5142/04, et Mürrüvet Küçük c. Turquie (radiation), no 21784/04, du 10 novembre 2005) ou de son avocat (voir, par exemple, l'arrêt Falkovych c. Ukraine (radiation), du 4 octobre 2005, no 64200/00, et la décision Fleury c. France, du 6 juillet 2006, no 2361/03).
EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 19742/08
POBEGAYLO c. RUSSIE
Elle a également rayé des requêtes du rôle au regard du manque de diligence du requérant (voir, par exemple, les arrêts Hun c. Turquie (radiation), no 5142/04, et Mürrüvet Küçük c. Turquie (radiation), no 21784/04, du 10 novembre 2005) ou de son avocat (voir, par exemple, l'arrêt Falkovych c. Ukraine (radiation), du 4 octobre 2005, no 64200/00, et la décision Fleury c. France, du 6 juillet 2006, no 2361/03).
EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 35608/10
AARTS c. SUISSE
Selon la jurisprudence de la Cour, celle-ci a par exemple rayé des requêtes du rôle en application de ce texte au motif du manque de diligence du requérant (voir, par exemple, les arrêts Hun c. Turquie (radiation), no 5142/04, 10 novembre 2005, et Mürrüvet Küçük c. Turquie (radiation), no 21784/04, 10 novembre 2005) ou au motif que le requérant avait omis de désigner un conseil pour le représenter devant elle (Grimaylo c. Ukraine (déc.), no 69364/01, 7 février 2006, et R.W. c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 37281/05, 14 septembre 2010).