Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IGRANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  IGRANOV v. RUSSIA and 18 other applications

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (28)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 42399/13

  However, with a view to helping the respondent State to fulfil that obligation, the Court may seek to indicate the type of general measures that might be taken in order to put an end to the situation it has found to exist (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, §§ 158-59, ECHR 2014; Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, §§ 254-55, ECHR 2012; Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 148, 17 September 2009; and Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 194, ECHR 2004-V).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 42399/13

  However, with a view to helping the respondent State to fulfil that obligation, the Court may seek to indicate the type of general measures that might be taken in order to put an end to the situation it has found to exist (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, §§ 158-59, ECHR 2014; Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, §§ 254-55, ECHR 2012; Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 148, 17 September 2009; and Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 194, ECHR 2004-V).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 42399/13

  However, with a view to helping the respondent State to fulfil that obligation, the Court may seek to indicate the type of general measures that might be taken in order to put an end to the situation it has found to exist (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, §§ 158-59, ECHR 2014; Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, §§ 254-55, ECHR 2012; Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 148, 17 September 2009; and Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 194, ECHR 2004-V).

 
• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12

  MOREIRA FERREIRA v. PORTUGAL (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 42399/13

  The re-examination of the case would be the most appropriate form of redress in the situation where the violation stemmed from procedural errors or shortcomings of such gravity that a serious doubt was cast on the outcome of the domestic proceedings complained of (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, §§ 48-49, ECHR 2017 (extracts), and Davydov, cited above, § 27, both citing the Committee of Ministers" Recommendation No. R(2000)2 to member States on the re-examination or reopening of certain cases at domestic level following judgments of the European Court of Human Rights).
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 42399/13

  It is however important to reiterate that making use of that possibility does not prejudge a domestic court's decision on whether such a reopening should be granted on the facts of the specific case, having regard to the principle of res judicata or legal certainty in civil litigation, in particular where such litigation concerned private parties with their own legitimate interests to be protected (see Davydov, cited above, § 29; Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, §§ 57-58, ECHR 2015, and Yevdokimov and Others, cited above, § 59, and compare with the Perm Regional Court's judgment in paragraph 14 above).
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 71386/10

  SAVRIDDIN DZHURAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 42399/13

  Since that judgment was adopted less than two years ago, the Court will abstain at the present time from formulating general measures or applying the pilot-judgment procedure, considering that the indications provided above will help to ensure the proper execution of the present judgment under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers (see Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, § 264, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 50425/99

  E.G. c. POLOGNE ET 175 AUTRES AFFAIRES DE LA RIVIÈRE BOUG

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 42399/13

  Where States have introduced domestic legislation that provided existing and potential victims with relief at the domestic level, the Court has simply struck out cases already on its list (see, for instance, E.G. v. Poland and 175 Other Bug River applications v. Poland (dec.), no. 50425/99, §§ 22-25, ECHR 2008 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 12.10.2017 - 46852/13

  BURMYCH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 42399/13

  After adopting the pilot-judgment procedure the respondent State is subsequently required to eliminate the source of the violation for the future and provide a remedy for the past prejudice suffered by both the applicants in the pilot case and all other victims of the same type of violation (see Burmych and Others v. Ukraine [GC], nos. 46852/13 et al., § 161, ECHR 2017).
• EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 30226/09

  XYNOS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 42399/13

  Where general measures include a new legal remedy capable of providing sufficient and adequate redress at a domestic level, the Court has declared follow-up cases stemming from the same systemic issue inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies and "repatriated" them to the respondent States (see, for instance, Xynos v. Greece, no. 30226/09, 9 October 2014).
• EGMR - 2139/10 (anhängig)

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 42399/13

  It is for the Committee of Ministers to assess the effectiveness of the measures proposed by the Russian Government and to follow up on their subsequent implementation in line with the Convention requirements (see Lindheim and Others v. Norway, nos. 13221/08 and 2139/10, § 137, 12 June 2012).

• EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 9945/18

  SHKREBKO c. RUSSIE

  Les dispositions relatives à la procédure de réexamen dans les affaires civiles, telles interprétées par la Cour suprême et appliquées par certaines juridictions de fond, sont exposées dans l'arrêt Igranov et autres c. Russie (nos 42399/13 et 8 autres, §§ 10-14, 20 mars 2018).

  Le contentieux du requérant portait sur la détermination des droits et obligations des tiers - le frère et la mère de l'intéressé - et qu'aucun élément du dossier ne permet de remettre en cause leur bonne foi (voir, a contrario, Davydov c. Russie, no 18967/07, § 6, 30 octobre 2014, et Igranov et autres c. Russie, nos 42399/13 et 8 autres, § 6, 20 mars 2018 où il s'agissait des litiges opposant les requérants aux autorités publiques).

• EGMR, 01.02.2024 - 14962/15

  ISAGOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  42399/13 and 8 others, § 24, 20 March 2018, and, for a similar approach, Korol v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no. 20129/18, 20 May 2021).
• EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 5386/10

  ZAYIDOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

  42399/13 and 8 others, §§ 35-36, 20 March 2018).

 
• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 59863/18

  ISMAYILOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  42399/13 and 8 others, § 24, 20 March 2018, and, for a similar approach, Antovski and Others v. North Macedonia (dec.) [Committee], no. 68160/17, 8 December 2022).
• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 57347/19

  ABDULLAYEV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  42399/13 and 8 others, § 24, 20 March 2018, and, for a similar approach, Antovski and Others v. North Macedonia (dec.) [Committee], no. 68160/17, 8 December 2022).
• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 42513/19

  GULIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  42399/13 and 8 others, § 24, 20 March 2018, and, for a similar approach, Antovski and Others v. North Macedonia (dec.) [Committee], no. 68160/17, 8 December 2022).
• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 51443/21

  TITAN GROUP POLSKA SP. Z O.O. v. POLAND

  42399/13 and 8 others, § 24, 20 March 2018, and, for a similar approach, Antovski and Others v. North Macedonia (dec.) [Committee], no. 68160/17, 8 December 2022).
• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 6307/18

  MAMMADOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  42399/13 and 8 others, § 24, 20 March 2018, and, for a similar approach, Antovski and Others v. North Macedonia (dec.) [Committee], no. 68160/17, 8 December 2022).
• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 38567/19

  NADIRLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  42399/13 and 8 others, § 24, 20 March 2018, and, for a similar approach, Antovski and Others v. North Macedonia (dec.) [Committee], no. 68160/17, 8 December 2022).
• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 8640/20

  MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  42399/13 and 8 others, § 24, 20 March 2018, and, for a similar approach, Korol v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no. 20129/18, 20 May 2021).
• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 43352/16

  MUSAVAT PARTIYASI v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 9664/20

  SAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 36850/21

  KORABIK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 09.11.2023 - 38931/20

  HAZIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 01.06.2023 - 27026/16

  TIMOTEI MOTORS EOOD c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 04.04.2023 - 79356/17

  STASSART c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 24.02.2022 - 43346/20

  DOGAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 09.11.2023 - 60246/19

  BROCKHOFF c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 28.09.2023 - 57739/18

  GASIMLI v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 31.08.2023 - 19071/18

  BABAYEV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 31.08.2023 - 40990/18

  ASHUROV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 31.08.2023 - 52062/16

  RRAPAJ v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 19.05.2022 - 55588/18

  MUCKO v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 09.12.2021 - 56899/16

  NASIRLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 56911/14

  SHIGALEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.02.2019 - 56859/13

  SHEPELEV AND BUKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 57477/14

  GRIGORYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.06.2018 - 40913/14

  RUMYANTSEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA