Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  POLTORACHENKO v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the fairness of the proceedings Violation of P1-1 Inadmissible under Art. 6-1 with regard to the length of the proceedings Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 41984/98

  SVETLANA NAUMENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 77317/01

  The relevant domestic law is set out in the judgment of 9 November 2004 in the case of Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine (no. 41984/98).

  It finds that it would be inappropriate to separate the contentious and administrative proceedings and to assess their length in isolation (see Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, judgment of 9 November 2004, § 74).

  Furthermore, the Court has previously found a violation of this provision regarding the lack of independence and impartiality of the Ukrainian Supreme Court when dealing with a protest lodged by one of its members (Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, §§ 91-92, judgment of 9 November 2004; Tregubenko v. Ukraine (no. 61333/00, § 41, judgment of 2 November 2004).

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 77317/01

  The Court recalls that the "reasonable" length of proceedings must be assessed in accordance with the circumstances of the case and the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the behaviour of the applicant and that of the competent authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99

  RIABYKH c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 77317/01

  The Government conceded that, in view of the Ryabykh v. Russia judgment of 24 July 2003 (no. 52854/99), the quashing of the final judgment of 15 January 2001 by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Crimea in the present case, following a protest lodged by the President of that court in supervisory review proceedings, could be regarded as having violated the principles of the rule of law and legal certainty.

• EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

  PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 77317/01

  The Court reiterates that, according to the established case-law of the Convention organs, "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 can include claims in respect of which the applicant can argue that he or she has at least a "legitimate expectation" of obtaining the effective enjoyment of a property right (see Pine Valley Developments Ltd. and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 23, § 51; Pressos Companía Naviera S.A. v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, § 31).
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 77317/01

  The Court reiterates that, according to the established case-law of the Convention organs, "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 can include claims in respect of which the applicant can argue that he or she has at least a "legitimate expectation" of obtaining the effective enjoyment of a property right (see Pine Valley Developments Ltd. and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 23, § 51; Pressos Companía Naviera S.A. v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, § 31).
• EGMR, 15.10.1999 - 26614/95

  HUMEN c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 77317/01

  The Court reiterates that only delays attributable to the State may justify a finding of non-compliance with the "reasonable time" requirement (see Humen v. Poland, no. 26614/95, § 66, judgment of 15 October 1999).
• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 45526/99

  GAYDUK ET AUTRES c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 77317/01

  Whilst the Court has held that there is no right as such flowing from this provision to the indexation of bank savings (Gayduk and Others v. Ukraine [GC], no. 45526/99 and others, decision of 2 July 2002), a judgment debt may be regarded as a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Shmalko v. Ukraine, no. 60750/00, judgment of 20 July 2004, § 55).
• EGMR, 02.11.2004 - 61333/00

  TREGUBENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 77317/01

  Furthermore, the Court has previously found a violation of this provision regarding the lack of independence and impartiality of the Ukrainian Supreme Court when dealing with a protest lodged by one of its members (Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, §§ 91-92, judgment of 9 November 2004; Tregubenko v. Ukraine (no. 61333/00, § 41, judgment of 2 November 2004).
• EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 7604/76

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 77317/01

  Furthermore, it has to take account not only of the original application but also of the additional documents intended to complete the latter by eliminating initial omissions or obscurities (see Foti and Others v. Italy, judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56, § 44).
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 07.10.2005 - 18/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 77317/01

  18/04/2005.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 62608/00

  AGROTEHSERVIS ET 7 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE L'UKRAINE

  Poltorachenko, Application No. 77317/01, judgment of 18/01/2005, final on 18/04/2005,.

  Poltorachenko, 77317/01.

• EGMR, 03.04.2008 - 773/03

  REGENT COMPANY v. UKRAINE

  The Court also notes that it has consistently held that a "claim" can only constitute a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 40, ECHR 2002-III, and Poltorachenko v. Ukraine, no. 77317/01, § 45, 18 January 2005).
• EGMR, 01.12.2005 - 73203/01

  SMARYGIN v. RUSSIA

  Therefore, the Court is of the view that the applicant should be compensated for the money that he would have received if the final judgment in his favour had been fully enforced (see Poltorachenko v. Ukraine, no. 77317/01, § 50, 18 January 2005).

• EGMR, 21.02.2006 - 53500/99

  ZHERDIN v. UKRAINE

  The relevant domestic law and practice in relation to supervisory review proceedings is summarised in the case-law of the Court (see Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, § 65, 9 November 2004; Tregubenko v. Ukraine, no. 61333/00, §§ 29-30, 2 November 2004; Poltorachenko v. Ukraine, no. 77317/01, § 21, 18 January 2005).
• EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 25003/06

  BILETSKAYA v. UKRAINE

  The Court reiterates that the judgment debt at issue constitutes the applicant's possession (see Poltorachenko v. Ukraine, no. 77317/01, § 38, 18 January 2005) and impossibility for the applicant to obtain execution of the judgment at issue amounts to an interference with this possession (see, among other authorities, Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, § 53, 29 June 2004).
• EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 8945/04

  CETINKAYA v. TURKEY

  The Court also notes that it has consistently held that a "claim" can only constitute a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 40, ECHR 2002-III, and Poltorachenko v. Ukraine, no. 77317/01, § 45, 18 January 2005).
• EGMR, 04.11.2008 - 28668/03

  ZÖHRE AKYOL v. TURKEY

  The Court also notes that it has consistently held that a "claim" can only constitute a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 40, ECHR 2002-III, and Poltorachenko v. Ukraine, no. 77317/01, § 45, 18 January 2005).
• EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 74154/01

  BRAGA v. MOLDOVA

  Furthermore, it has to take account not only of the original application but also of the additional documents intended to complete the latter by eliminating initial omissions or obscurities" (Poltorachenko v. Ukraine, no. 77317/01, § 25, 18 January 2005).
• EGMR, 03.07.2007 - 32254/03

  BORDOKINA v. UKRAINE

  Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that the duration of the proceedings did not exceed what may still be considered "reasonable" (see e.g. Poltorachenko v. Ukraine, no. 77317/01, §§ 29-30, 18 January 2005 and Belukha v. Ukraine, no. 33949/02, §§ 66-67, 9 November 2006).