Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 29920/05, 3553/06, 18876/10, 61186/10, 21176/11, 36112/11, 36426/11, 40841/11, 45381/11, 55929/11, 60822/11   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2014,14823
EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 29920/05, 3553/06, 18876/10, 61186/10, 21176/11, 36112/11, 36426/11, 40841/11, 45381/11, 55929/11, 60822/11 (https://dejure.org/2014,14823)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01.07.2014 - 29920/05, 3553/06, 18876/10, 61186/10, 21176/11, 36112/11, 36426/11, 40841/11, 45381/11, 55929/11, 60822/11 (https://dejure.org/2014,14823)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01. Juli 2014 - 29920/05, 3553/06, 18876/10, 61186/10, 21176/11, 36112/11, 36426/11, 40841/11, 45381/11, 55929/11, 60822/11 (https://dejure.org/2014,14823)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2014,14823) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    GERASIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 41, Art. 46, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
    Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim) Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) ...

Sonstiges

 
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 ... (35)Neu Zitiert selbst (17)

  • EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

    ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 29920/05
    The rule is based on the assumption, reflected in Article 13 of the Convention - with which it has close affinity - that there is an effective remedy available to deal with the substance of an "arguable complaint" under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief (Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 93, 10 January 2012).
  • EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

    FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 29920/05
    The Court reiterates that the purpose of Article 35 § 1 is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right - usually through the courts - the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 37, ECHR 1999-I).
  • EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 25551/05

    KOROLEV c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 29920/05
    The Court has thus been frequently led, under Articles 37 and 39, to verify that the general problem raised by the case had been or was being remedied and that similar legal issues had been resolved by the Court in other cases (see Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010, with further references).
     
  • EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

    RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 29920/05
    In particular, the Court has consistently held that a "claim" - even to a particular social benefit - can constitute a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see Burdov, cited above, § 40, and Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, § 59, Series A no. 301-B).
  • EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99

    Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 29920/05
    46113/99 et al., § 69, ECHR 2010, and Nagovitsyn et Nalgiyev (dec.), cited above, § 40).
  • EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

    SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 29920/05
    There are several avenues by which this goal can be achieved in Russian law and the Court would not impose any specific option, having regard to the respondent State's discretion to choose the means it will use to comply with the judgment (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII).
  • EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

    PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 29920/05
    However, pecuniary assets, such as debts, by virtue of which the applicant can claim to have at least a "legitimate expectation" of obtaining effective enjoyment of a particular pecuniary asset may fall within the notion of "possessions" contained in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 29 November 1991, § 51, Series A no. 222; Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, § 31, Series A no. 332; and, mutatis mutandis, S.A. Dangeville v. France, no. 36677/97, §§ 44-48, ECHR 2002-III).
  • EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 36677/97

    S.A. DANGEVILLE c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 29920/05
    However, pecuniary assets, such as debts, by virtue of which the applicant can claim to have at least a "legitimate expectation" of obtaining effective enjoyment of a particular pecuniary asset may fall within the notion of "possessions" contained in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 29 November 1991, § 51, Series A no. 222; Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, § 31, Series A no. 332; and, mutatis mutandis, S.A. Dangeville v. France, no. 36677/97, §§ 44-48, ECHR 2002-III).
  • EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

    PRESSOS COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 29920/05
    However, pecuniary assets, such as debts, by virtue of which the applicant can claim to have at least a "legitimate expectation" of obtaining effective enjoyment of a particular pecuniary asset may fall within the notion of "possessions" contained in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 29 November 1991, § 51, Series A no. 222; Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, § 31, Series A no. 332; and, mutatis mutandis, S.A. Dangeville v. France, no. 36677/97, §§ 44-48, ECHR 2002-III).
  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 34884/97

    BOTTAZZI c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 29920/05
    While noting a perceptible trend towards an improvement in this sensitive area and the increasing attention paid to the problems by the respondent State at the highest level (see paragraphs 106-108 above), the Court is bound to conclude that the recurrent violations of the Convention, such as those found in the present case, reveal persistent structural dysfunctions which amount, by their nature and scale, to a practice incompatible with the Convention (see Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], no. 34884/97, § 22, ECHR 1999 V, and Burdov (no. 2), cited above, § 135).
  • EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 22000/03

    RAYLYAN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 11931/03

    TETERINY v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 07.07.2005 - 41302/02

    MALINOVSKIY v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 03.11.2005 - 63995/00

    KUKALO v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 6025/09

    KOVALEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 38368/04

    SYPCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33509/04

    BURDOV v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  • EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 36925/10

    Gefängnisse in Bulgarien: Unwürdige Zustände

    29920/05, 3553/06, 18876/10, 61186/10, 21176/11, 36112/11, 36426/11, 40841/11, 45381/11, 55929/11 and 60822/11, § 191, 1 July 2014).
  • EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 18255/10

    TOMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    29920/05 and 10 others, § 130, 1 July 2014; and Jeronovics v. Latvia [GC], no. 44898/10, §§ 64-71, ECHR 2016).
  • EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 14988/09

    Homosexuellen-Kundgebungen verboten: Russland erneut verurteilt

    Likewise, in Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC] (no. 40167/06), Maestri v. Italy [GC] (no. 39748/98) Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC] (no. 36760/06), Assanidze v. Georgia [GC] (no. 71503/01), Vella v. Malta (no. 73182/12), Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey (no. 46347/99 (just satisfaction)) and Gerasimov and others v. Russia (no. 29920/05 and 10 others), the Court awarded non-pecuniary damages to the applicant(s), while at the same time urging the State to take general measures to resolve the violation(s) alleged.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht