Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHANUSTARANOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Access to court) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Khanustaranov v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2014 - 2173/04

  In this respect the Court is mindful that the six-month rule is a public policy rule and that, consequently, it has jurisdiction to apply it of its own motion (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 160, ECHR 2004-II), even if the Government have not raised that objection (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 28342/95

  BRUMARESCU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2014 - 2173/04

  The Court reiterates that one of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law is the principle of legal certainty, which requires, among other things, that where the courts have finally determined an issue, their ruling should, in principle, not be called into question (see Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-VII).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2014 - 2173/04

  In this respect the Court is mindful that the six-month rule is a public policy rule and that, consequently, it has jurisdiction to apply it of its own motion (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 160, ECHR 2004-II), even if the Government have not raised that objection (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 20887/03

  KOT v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2014 - 2173/04

  Departures from that principle are justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IX; Kot v. Russia, no. 20887/03, § 24, 18 January 2007; and Dovguchits v. Russia, no. 2999/03, § 27, 7 June 2007).
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 2999/03

  DOVGUCHITS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2014 - 2173/04

  Departures from that principle are justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IX; Kot v. Russia, no. 20887/03, § 24, 18 January 2007; and Dovguchits v. Russia, no. 2999/03, § 27, 7 June 2007).

• EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 53567/07

  GIRISEN v. TURKEY

  In that connection, the Court is mindful of the fact that the six-month rule is a public policy rule and that, consequently, it has jurisdiction to apply it of its own motion (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 160, ECHR 2004-II), even if the Government have not raised that objection (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I, and Khanustaranov v. Russia, no. 2173/04, § 37, 28 May 2014).
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 54940/09

  SEYHAN v. TURKEY

  In this respect the Court is mindful of the fact that the six-month rule is a public policy rule and that, consequently, it has jurisdiction to apply it of its own motion (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 160, ECHR 2004-II), even if the Government have not raised that objection (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I, and Khanustaranov v.Russia, no. 2173/04, § 37, 28 May 2014).