Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KRAVCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6 Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - award Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 59498/00

  BURDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 34615/02

  The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 26, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 69582/01

  SARDINE c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 34615/02

  In the absence of an effective remedy the Court concludes that it was the very act of quashing the final judgment of 10 March 1999 that triggered the start of the six-month time-limit for lodging this part of the application to the Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Sardin v. Russia (dec.), no. 69582/01, ECHR 2004-II).
• EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 55609/00

  SITOKHOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 34615/02

  The Court further notes that the quashing of a final judgment is an instantaneous act, which does not create a continuing situation, even if it entails a re-opening of the proceedings as in the instant case (see Sitokhova v. Russia (dec.), no. 55609/00, 2 September 2004).

 
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 15346/89

  MASSON AND VAN ZON v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 34615/02

  As the Court has consistently held, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences are not sufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, § 47, Series A no. 43; Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 56, Series A no. 294-B; and Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands, 28 September 1995, § 44, Series A no. 327-A).
• EGMR, 24.11.1994 - 15287/89

  BEAUMARTIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 34615/02

  Furthermore, Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable where an action is "pecuniary" in nature and is founded on an alleged infringement of rights which are likewise pecuniary rights, notwithstanding the origin of the dispute (see, for example, Beaumartin v. France, judgment of 24 November 1994, Series A no. 296-B, p. 60-61, § 28).
• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 34615/02

  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, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 34615/02

  As the Court has consistently held, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences are not sufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, § 47, Series A no. 43; Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 56, Series A no. 294-B; and Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands, 28 September 1995, § 44, Series A no. 327-A).
• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 34615/02

  As the Court has consistently held, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences are not sufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, § 47, Series A no. 43; Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 56, Series A no. 294-B; and Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands, 28 September 1995, § 44, Series A no. 327-A).

• EGMR, 24.02.2022 - 28754/10

  MASTILOVIC AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO

  The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 126, 20 March 2018; Kravchenko v. Russia, no. 34615/02, § 29, 2 April 2009; and Keselj and Others v. Montenegro [Committee], no. 33264/11, § 16, 13 February 2018), the relevant parts of which read as follows:.
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 30859/10

  SOKOLOV AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  Also, in cases involving the execution of a final court decision, a continuing situation ends, in principle, on the date of the enforcement of the relevant decision or when an "objective impossibility" to enforce such decision is duly acknowledged (see, for example, Tripcovici v. Romania (dec.), no. 21489/03, 22 September 2009; Kravchenko v. Russia, no. 34615/02, § 34, 2 April 2009, and Babich and Azhogin v. Russia (dec.), no. 9457/09, §§ 48-9, 15 October 2013).
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 35722/04

  MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA

  In the performance of its task, the Court is free to attribute to the facts of the case, as established on the evidence before it, a characterisation in law different from that given by the applicant or, if need be, to view the facts in a different manner (see Kravchenko v. Russia, no. 34615/02, § 27, 2 April 2009).

 
• EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 32897/07

  TELHAI v. ALBANIA

  However, in cases involving the execution of a final court decision, a continuing situation ends, in principle, on the date of the enforcement of the relevant decision or when an "objective impossibility" to enforce such decision is duly acknowledged (see, for example, Tripcovici v. Romania (dec.), no. 21489/03, 22 September 2009; Kravchenko v. Russia, no. 34615/02, § 34, 2 April 2009, and Babich and Azhogin v. Russia (dec.), no. 9457/09, §§ 48-9, 15 October 2013).
• EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 5207/06

  PAVLOVSKIY v. RUSSIA

  In a number of cases the Court has rejected non-enforcement complaints in accordance with Article 35 § 1 of the Convention if they were introduced more than six months after the date when the judgment ceased to be binding and enforceable (see, in the context of the quashing of a judgment by way of supervisory-review proceedings, Kravchenko v. Russia, no. 34615/02, § 34, 2 April 2009, and Nikolay Zaytsev v. Russia, no. 3447/06, § 26, 18 February 2010).
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 30723/09

  KRNDIJA v. SERBIA

  Furthermore, it is a continuing situation which ends, in principle, on the date of the enforcement of the relevant decision or when it is acknowledged that enforcement is objectively impossible (see, for example, Tripcovici v. Romania (dec.), no. 21489/03, 22 September 2009; Kravchenko v. Russia, no. 34615/02, § 34, 2 April 2009; and Babich and Azhogin v. Russia (dec.), no. 9457/09, §§ 48-49, 15 October 2013).