Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DENISOV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 18512/02

  Furthermore, they have to take into account not only the original application but also the additional documents intended to complete the latter by eliminating initial omissions or obscurities (see, Ringeisen v. Austria, judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, pp. 40-41, § 98, as compared with p. 34, § 79, and pp. 39-40, §§ 96-97).

• EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 30674/03

  GAVRILENKO v. RUSSIA

  In view of its previous case-law in cases concerning the delays in payments of the judgment debts (see Krapyvnitsky v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 60858/00, 17 September 2002; Denisov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 18512/02, 1 February 2005), the Court concludes that the delay which occurred in the present case does not in itself amount to an interference with the applicant's "right to a court" or "possessions", protected by Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention respectively.
• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 3352/05

  DERKACH v. RUSSIA

  Having regard to the content of the judgment of 25 November 2005, the applicant's unwillingness to appeal against it and the fact that it was enforced within a relatively short period of time which did not impair the essence of the applicant's right to a court (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, §§ 33-42, ECHR 2002-III; Grishchenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 75907/01, 8 July 2004; Denisov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 18512/02, 1 February 2005; Presnyakov v. Russia (dec.), no. 41145/02, 10 November 2005), the Court finds that the national authorities have acknowledged and then afforded redress for the alleged breach of the Convention.
• EGMR, 14.09.2006 - 38712/03

  SIROTIN v. RUSSIA

  Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see, e.g., Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, §§ 33-42, ECHR 2002-III; Grishchenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 75907/01, 8 July 2004; Denisov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 18512/02, 1 February 2005; Presnyakov v. Russia (dec.), no. 41145/02, 10 November 2005), the Court considers that the delay in the enforcement of the judgment in the circumstances of the present case cannot be said to have impaired the essence of the applicant's right to a court.
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 41146/02

  KOLOTKOV v. RUSSIA

  Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see, e.g., Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, §§ 33-42, ECHR 2002-III; Grishchenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 75907/01, 8 July 2004; Denisov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 18512/02, 1 February 2005; Presnyakov v. Russia (dec.), no. 41145/02, 10 November 2005) the Court considers that the delay in the enforcement of the judgment in the circumstances of the present case cannot be said to have interfered with the applicant's property rights in a manner incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.