Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 07.06.2017 - 53084/99, 28222/06, 33820/04, 30395/04, 55520/00, 22892/03, 22721/04, 4171/03, 42277/04, 38321/03, 11549/02, 23310/04, 10929/03, 20882/04, 34171/04, 10994/05, 24427/02, 39898/03, 5507/06, 76964/01, 76835/01, 25224/04, 44374/04, 24827/06, 44436/06, 12049/0 |
Zitiervorschläge
EGMR, 07.06.2017 - 53084/99, 28222/06, 33820/04, 30395/04, 55520/00, 22892/03, 22721/04, 4171/03, 42277/04, 38321/03, 11549/02, 23310/04, 10929/03, 20882/04, 34171/04, 10994/05, 24427/02, 39898/03, 5507/06, 76964/01, 76835/01, 25224/04, 44374/04, 24827/06, 44436/06, 12049/0 (https://dejure.org/2017,20450)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 07.06.2017 - 53084/99, 28222/06, 33820/04, 30395/04, 55520/00, 22892/03, 22721/04, 4171/03, 42277/04, 38321/03, 11549/02, 23310/04, 10929/03, 20882/04, 34171/04, 10994/05, 24427/02, 39898/03, 5507/06, 76964/01, 76835/01, 25224/04, 44374/04, 24827/06, 44436/06, 12049/0 (https://dejure.org/2017,20450)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 07. Juni 2017 - 53084/99, 28222/06, 33820/04, 30395/04, 55520/00, 22892/03, 22721/04, 4171/03, 42277/04, 38321/03, 11549/02, 23310/04, 10929/03, 20882/04, 34171/04, 10994/05, 24427/02, 39898/03, 5507/06, 76964/01, 76835/01, 25224/04, 44374/04, 24827/06, 44436/06, 12049/0 (https://dejure.org/2017,20450)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,20450) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KORMACHEVA ET 105 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA RUSSIE
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KORMACHEVA AND 105 OTHER CASES AGAINST RUSSIA
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 53084/99
- EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 53084/99
- EGMR, 07.06.2017 - 53084/99, 28222/06, 33820/04, 30395/04, 55520/00, 22892/03, 22721/04, 4171/03, 42277/04, 38321/03, 11549/02, 23310/04, 10929/03, 20882/04, 34171/04, 10994/05, 24427/02, 39898/03, 5507/06, 76964/01, 76835/01, 25224/04, 44374/04, 24827/06, 44436/06, 12049/0
Wird zitiert von ... (16)
- EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 42250/02
CALMANOVICI c. ROUMANIE
Par ailleurs, les arguments pour et contre la remise en liberté ne doivent pas être «généraux et abstraits» (voir, parmi d'autres, Smirnova c. Russie, nos 46133/99 et 48183/99, § 63, CEDH 2003-IX (extraits)). - EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 14352/04
JIGA c. ROUMANIE
La poursuite de la détention ne se justifie donc dans une espèce donnée que si des indices concrets révèlent une véritable exigence d'intérêt public prévalant, nonobstant la présomption d'innocence, sur la règle du respect de la liberté individuelle (Smirnova c. Russie, nos 46133/99 et 48183/99, § 61, CEDH 2003-IX (extraits)). - EGMR - 20558/04
BUCURESTEANU c. ROUMANIE
La durée de la detention provisoire subie par le requérant était-elle compatible avec la condition de jugement dans un délai «raisonnable», au sens de l'article 5 § 3 de la Convention (voir, entre autres, Smirnova c. Russie, no 46133/99 et 48183/99, §§ 58-64, CEDH 2003-IX) ?.
- EGMR, 15.03.2011 - 20448/02
BEGU c. ROUMANIE
La poursuite de la détention ne se justifie donc dans une espèce donnée que si des indices concrets révèlent une véritable exigence d'intérêt public prévalant, nonobstant la présomption d'innocence, sur la règle du respect de la liberté individuelle (Smirnova c. Russie, nos 46133/99 et 48183/99, § 61, CEDH 2003-IX (extraits)). - EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 35104/02
DEGERATU c. ROUMANIE
La poursuite de la détention ne se justifie donc dans une espèce donnée que si des indices concrets révèlent une véritable exigence d'intérêt public prévalant, nonobstant la présomption d'innocence, sur la règle du respect de la liberté individuelle (Smirnova c. Russie, nos 46133/99 et 48183/99, § 61, CEDH 2003-IX (extraits)). - EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 3584/02
TARAU c. ROUMANIE
A cet égard, elle rappelle que ce n'est qu'en fournissant les motifs sur lesquels une décision se fonde que l'on peut permettre un contrôle public de l'administration de la justice (Suominen c. Finlande, no 37801/97, § 37, 1er juillet 2003) ; en outre, les arguments en faveur de et contre la remise en liberté ne doivent pas être «généraux et abstraits» (Smirnova c. Russie, nos 46133/99 et 48183/99, § 63, CEDH 2003-IX (extraits)). - EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 36045/02
SHNEYDERMAN v. RUSSIA
It notes that the Government did not indicate any remedy that could have expedited the determination of the applicant's case or provided him with adequate redress for delays that had already occurred (see Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, 29 January 2004, § 64). - EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 22892/03
BAKIYEVETS v. RUSSIA
It notes that the Government did not indicate any remedy that could have expedited the determination of the applicant's case or provided him with adequate redress for delays that had already occurred (see Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, 29 January 2004, § 64). - EGMR, 22.09.2005 - 3734/02
SOKOLOV v. RUSSIA
It notes that the Government did not indicate any remedy that could have expedited the determination of the applicant's case or provided him with adequate redress for delays that had already occurred (see Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, 29 January 2004, § 64). - EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 28639/03
SAVENKO v. RUSSIA
It notes that the Government did not indicate any remedy that could have expedited the determination of the applicant's case or provided her with adequate redress for delays that had already occurred (see Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, 29 January 2004, § 64). - EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 10929/03
GLAZKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 4171/03
CHEVKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.12.2005 - 14983/04
RYBAKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 60408/00
YEMANAKOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 42046/06
ZAYTSEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.06.2009 - 13458/07
VDOVINA v. RUSSIA
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 25.03.2008 - 11549/02 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,56962) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
FALIMONOV v. RUSSIA
Art. 6, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (4) Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 38305/02
GOROKHOV AND RUSYAYEV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2008 - 11549/02
It follows that the domestic authorities should have treated the applicant's case with special diligence (compare Gorokhov and Rusyayev v. Russia, no. 38305/02, § 34, 17 March 2005).The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see Reynbakh v. Russia, no. 23405/03, § 23 et seq., 29 September 2005; Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 19 et seq., 13 January 2005; Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, § 23 et seq., 24 February 2005; Gorokhov and Rusyayev v. Russia, no. 38305/02, § 30 et seq., 17 March 2005; Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, § 35 et seq., 18 November 2004; Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 34 et seq., ECHR 2002-III).
- EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 36494/02
PETRUSHKO v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2008 - 11549/02
In any event, the Court reiterates that a person who has obtained an enforceable judgment against the State as a result of successful litigation cannot be required to resort to enforcement proceedings in order to have it executed (see Koltsov v. Russia, no. 41304/02, § 16, 24 February 2005; Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, § 18, 24 February 2005; and Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, § 19, 27 May 2004).The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see Reynbakh v. Russia, no. 23405/03, § 23 et seq., 29 September 2005; Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 19 et seq., 13 January 2005; Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, § 23 et seq., 24 February 2005; Gorokhov and Rusyayev v. Russia, no. 38305/02, § 30 et seq., 17 March 2005; Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, § 35 et seq., 18 November 2004; Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 34 et seq., ECHR 2002-III).
- EGMR, 13.01.2005 - 5124/03
GIZZATOVA v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2008 - 11549/02
The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see Reynbakh v. Russia, no. 23405/03, § 23 et seq., 29 September 2005; Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 19 et seq., 13 January 2005; Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, § 23 et seq., 24 February 2005; Gorokhov and Rusyayev v. Russia, no. 38305/02, § 30 et seq., 17 March 2005; Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, § 35 et seq., 18 November 2004; Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 34 et seq., ECHR 2002-III).
- EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 15021/02
WASSERMAN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2008 - 11549/02
The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see Reynbakh v. Russia, no. 23405/03, § 23 et seq., 29 September 2005; Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 19 et seq., 13 January 2005; Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, § 23 et seq., 24 February 2005; Gorokhov and Rusyayev v. Russia, no. 38305/02, § 30 et seq., 17 March 2005; Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, § 35 et seq., 18 November 2004; Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 34 et seq., ECHR 2002-III). - EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 23405/03
REYNBAKH v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2008 - 11549/02
The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see Reynbakh v. Russia, no. 23405/03, § 23 et seq., 29 September 2005; Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 19 et seq., 13 January 2005; Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, § 23 et seq., 24 February 2005; Gorokhov and Rusyayev v. Russia, no. 38305/02, § 30 et seq., 17 March 2005; Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, § 35 et seq., 18 November 2004; Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 34 et seq., ECHR 2002-III). - EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96
FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2008 - 11549/02
The Court has to have regard, inter alia, to the complexity of the factual or legal issues raised by the case, to the conduct of the applicant and the competent authorities and to what was at stake for the former (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
- EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 20578/05
HASKO v. TURKEY
It reiterates that the repeated quashing and remittal of lower court decisions for re-examination are usually ordered as a result of errors committed by the latter, which, within one set of proceedings, discloses a deficiency in the operation of the legal system (see Wierciszewska v. Poland, no. 41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003, and Falimonov v. Russia, no. 11549/02, § 58, 25 March 2008). - EGMR, 27.10.2009 - 21377/04
ER v. TURKEY
It reiterates that the repeated quashing and remittal of lower court decisions for re-examination are usually ordered as a result of errors committed by the latter, which, within one set of proceedings, discloses a deficiency in the operation of the legal system (see Wierciszewska v. Poland, no. 41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003; Falimonov v. Russia, no. 11549/02, § 58, 25 March 2008). - EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 9522/03
BALTUTAN AND ANO INSAAT VE TICARET LTD. STI v. TURKEY
The Court reiterates with regard to the repeated quashing of the lower courts' decisions that since the remittal of cases for re-examination is usually ordered as a result of errors committed by lower authorities, the repetition of such orders within one set of proceedings discloses a deficiency in the operation of the legal system (see Wierciszewska v. Poland, no. 41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003, and Falimonov v. Russia, no. 11549/02, § 58, 25 March 2008). - EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 9311/05
VERSHININ v. RUSSIA
Although the Court is not in a position to analyse the juridical quality of the domestic courts" decisions, it considers that multiple repetition of re-examination orders within one set of proceedings may disclose a deficiency in the judicial system (see Falimonov v. Russia, no. 11549/02, § 58, 25 March 2008).