Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MARGUSHIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 11989/03
• EGMR, 21.09.2017 - 11989/03

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 59498/00

  BURDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 11989/03

  The Court has repeatedly stated that where a judgment is given against the State, the latter must take the initiative in enforcing it fully and in due time (see, among other authorities, Akashev v. Russia, no. 30616/05, §§ 21-23, 12 June 2008, and Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, §§ 32-42, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99

  RIABYKH c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 11989/03

  A departure from that principle is justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character, such as correction of fundamental defects or miscarriage of justice (see, among numerous authorities, Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 45526/99

  GAYDUK ET AUTRES c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 11989/03

  45526/99 et al., ECHR 2002-VI; and Appolonov v. Russia (dec.), no. 67598/01, 29 August 2002).

 
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 30616/05

  AKASHEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 11989/03

  The Court has repeatedly stated that where a judgment is given against the State, the latter must take the initiative in enforcing it fully and in due time (see, among other authorities, Akashev v. Russia, no. 30616/05, §§ 21-23, 12 June 2008, and Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, §§ 32-42, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 23405/03

  REYNBAKH v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 11989/03

  The Court has also found that the principle that judgments must be executed cannot be interpreted as compelling the State to take the place of a private defendant in the event of the latter's insolvency (see Reynbakh v. Russia, no. 23405/03 § 18, 29 September 2005, and Bobrova v. Russia, no. 24654/03, § 16, 17 November 2005).
• EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 36496/02

  KESYAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 11989/03

  When the debtor is a private individual or company, the position is different, since the State is not, as a general rule, directly liable for debts of private individuals or companies and its obligations under the Convention are limited to providing the necessary assistance to the creditor in the enforcement of the relevant court awards, for example through a bailiffs' service or insolvency proceedings (see Kesyan v. Russia, no. 36496/02, 19 October 2006, and Fociac v. Romania, no. 2577/02, §§ 69-70, 3 February 2005).
• EGMR, 03.02.2005 - 2577/02

  FOCIAC c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 11989/03

  When the debtor is a private individual or company, the position is different, since the State is not, as a general rule, directly liable for debts of private individuals or companies and its obligations under the Convention are limited to providing the necessary assistance to the creditor in the enforcement of the relevant court awards, for example through a bailiffs' service or insolvency proceedings (see Kesyan v. Russia, no. 36496/02, 19 October 2006, and Fociac v. Romania, no. 2577/02, §§ 69-70, 3 February 2005).
• EGMR, 07.09.1999 - 45223/99

  RUDZINSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 11989/03

  The first reason for my disagreement is that, generally speaking, a State, according to the Court's case-law, is not responsible for savings deposited in private banks (see X v. Germany (dec.), no. 8724/79, Commission decision of 6 March 1980, Decisions and Reports 20; Rudzinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 45223/99, ECHR 1999-VI; Gayduk and Others v. Ukraine (dec.), nos.
• EKMR, 06.03.1980 - 8724/79

  X.v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 11989/03

  The first reason for my disagreement is that, generally speaking, a State, according to the Court's case-law, is not responsible for savings deposited in private banks (see X v. Germany (dec.), no. 8724/79, Commission decision of 6 March 1980, Decisions and Reports 20; Rudzinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 45223/99, ECHR 1999-VI; Gayduk and Others v. Ukraine (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 17.11.2005 - 24654/03

  BOBROVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 11989/03

  The Court has also found that the principle that judgments must be executed cannot be interpreted as compelling the State to take the place of a private defendant in the event of the latter's insolvency (see Reynbakh v. Russia, no. 23405/03 § 18, 29 September 2005, and Bobrova v. Russia, no. 24654/03, § 16, 17 November 2005).