Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EILDERS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  EILDERS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 55382/07

  ZABELIN AND ZABELINA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 475/08

  It therefore accepts that Mr Zabelin and Ms Eilders may pursue the application in so far as it was lodged by late Ms Zabelina (see Zabelin and Zabelina v. Russia, no. 55382/07, § 13, 4 October 2016, and Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, § 71, 23 October 2008).
• EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 28856/95

  JOKELA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 475/08

  The Court further reiterates that, although the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 contains no explicit procedural provisions, it has been its constant requirement that the domestic proceedings afford the aggrieved individual a reasonable opportunity of putting his or her case to the responsible authorities for the purpose of effectively challenging the measures interfering with the rights guaranteed by this provision (see Rummi v. Estonia, no. 63362/09, § 104, 15 January 2015; Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia, no. 16903/03, § 59, 1 April 2010; Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV; and AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 55, Series A no. 108).
• EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 13470/02

  KHUZHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 475/08

  It therefore accepts that Mr Zabelin and Ms Eilders may pursue the application in so far as it was lodged by late Ms Zabelina (see Zabelin and Zabelina v. Russia, no. 55382/07, § 13, 4 October 2016, and Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, § 71, 23 October 2008).

 
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 475/08

  The Court reiterates that in various cases where an applicant has died in the course of the proceedings, it has taken into account the statements of the applicant's heirs or close family members who expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings before it (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999-VI).
• EGMR, 24.10.1986 - 9118/80

  AGOSI c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 475/08

  The Court further reiterates that, although the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 contains no explicit procedural provisions, it has been its constant requirement that the domestic proceedings afford the aggrieved individual a reasonable opportunity of putting his or her case to the responsible authorities for the purpose of effectively challenging the measures interfering with the rights guaranteed by this provision (see Rummi v. Estonia, no. 63362/09, § 104, 15 January 2015; Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia, no. 16903/03, § 59, 1 April 2010; Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV; and AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 55, Series A no. 108).
• EGMR, 27.03.2019 - 16903/03

  DENISOVA ET MOISEYEVA CONTRE LA RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 475/08

  The Court further reiterates that, although the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 contains no explicit procedural provisions, it has been its constant requirement that the domestic proceedings afford the aggrieved individual a reasonable opportunity of putting his or her case to the responsible authorities for the purpose of effectively challenging the measures interfering with the rights guaranteed by this provision (see Rummi v. Estonia, no. 63362/09, § 104, 15 January 2015; Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia, no. 16903/03, § 59, 1 April 2010; Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV; and AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 55, Series A no. 108).

• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 42416/18

  SEBELEVA ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  En définitive, les juridictions internes n'ont pas justifié à suffisance la nécessité de la saisie litigieuse et de sa prolongation (voir OOO Avrora Maloetazhnoe Stroitelstvo, précité, §§ 73-74, et aussi, mutatis mutandis, Eilders et autres c. Russie [comité], no 475/08, § 23, 3 octobre 2017).