Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PSHENICHNYY 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 ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 24.02.1983 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 30422/03

  Such agreements may show, if they are legally enforceable, that the sums claimed are actually payable by the applicant (see Iatridis v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 31107/96, § 55, ECHR 2000-XI; and Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom (Article 50), judgment of 24 February 1983, Series A no. 59, § 22).

• EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 42126/15

  O.J. AND J.O. v. GEORGIA AND RUSSIA

  48205/99 and 2 others, § 27, 14 May 2002; Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 38, 14 February 2008; Saghatelyan v. Armenia, no. 7984/06, § 62, 20 October 2015; and Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria, no. 46577/15, § 89, 21 April 2016).
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

  Verletzung der Unschuldsvermutung eines Verstorbenen durch gerichtliche …

  55.  As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court reiterates its constant position that an applicant cannot be required to furnish any proof of non-pecuniary damage he or she has sustained (see, among many others, Antipenkov v. Russia, no. 33470/03, § 82, 15 October 2009; Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 35, 14 February 2008; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 113, ECHR 2007"VII (extracts); and Gridin v. Russia, no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006).
• EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 25228/09

  BORSAN c. ROUMANIE

  Par ailleurs, aux yeux de la Cour, seules les erreurs de fait qui ne sont devenues visibles qu'après la fin d'une procédure judiciaire peuvent justifier une dérogation au principe de la sécurité juridique au motif qu'elles n'ont pas pu être corrigées par le biais des voies ordinaires de recours (Pchenitchny c. Russie, no 30422/03, § 26, 14 février 2008, et Stanca Popescu c. Roumanie, no 8727/03, § 104, 7 juillet 2009).

 
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 15578/03

  YURIY LOBANOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates its constant position that an applicant cannot be required to furnish any proof of non-pecuniary damage he or she has sustained (see, among many others, Antipenkov v. Russia, no. 33470/03, § 82, 15 October 2009; Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 35, 14 February 2008; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 113, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts); and Gridin v. Russia, no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006).
• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42255/04

  NEDAYBORSHCH v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates its constant position that an applicant cannot be required to furnish any proof of non-pecuniary damage he or she has sustained (see, among many others, Antipenkov v. Russia, no. 33470/03, § 82, 15 October 2009; Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 35, 14 February 2008; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 113, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts); and Gridin v. Russia, no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006).
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16903/03

  DENISOVA AND MOISEYEVA v. RUSSIA

  As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court reiterates its constant position that an applicant cannot be required to furnish any proof of non-pecuniary damage he or she has sustained (see, among many others, Antipenkov v. Russia, no. 33470/03, § 82, 15 October 2009; Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 35, 14 February 2008; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 113, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts); and Gridin v. Russia, no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006).