Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TISHKEVICH v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 69829/01

  NUNES DIAS contre le PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 2202/05

  2672/03 and 69829/01, ECHR 2003-IV; Yakovlev v. Russia, no. 72701/01, § 21, 15 March 2005).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99

  RIABYKH c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 2202/05

  They may be disturbed only to correct fundamental defects (see Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 51-52, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 13151/04

  PROTSENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 2202/05

  To answer this complaint the Court will hence have to determine if the grounds for the quashing of the applicant's judgment fell within this exception (see Protsenko v. Russia, no. 13151/04, § 29, 31 July 2008).

• EGMR, 23.11.2021 - 40444/17

  KOOPERATIV NEPTUN SERVIS c. RUSSIE

  Ainsi, la Cour a jugé conforme au principe de la sécurité juridique l'infirmation d'un jugement affectant les droits et intérêts de tiers (Protsenko c. Russie, no 13151/04, §§ 29-34, 31 juillet 2008, Tishkevitch c. Russie, no 2202/05, §§ 25-27, 4 décembre 2008, et Tolstobrov c. Russie, no 11612/05, §§ 18-20, 4 mars 2010) dans des cas où les juridictions inférieures avaient statué, soit sans avoir assigné la partie requérante en qualité de défenderesse, soit sans lui avoir dûment donné notification d'un procès en cours, privant ainsi les requérants d'une possibilité de participer au procès ou de défendre leurs droits de manière effective.
• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 8549/06

  STRELTSOV AND OTHER

  Departures from that principle are justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see Kot v. Russia, no. 20887/03, § 24, 18 January 2007, and Protsenko v. Russia, no. 13151/04, §§ 25-34, 31 July 2008; and Tishkevich v. Russia, no. 2202/05, §§ 25-26, 4 December 2008).
• EGMR, 12.07.2022 - 35802/16

  KRIVTSOVA c. RUSSIE

  Cependant, les exigences découlant du principe de la sécurité juridique et de l'autorité de la chose jugée ne sont pas absolues ; des motifs substantiels et impérieux peuvent justifier une dérogation à ce principe, notamment lorsqu'il convient de rectifier un vice fondamental ou une erreur judiciaire (à ce titre, la Cour a jugé conforme au principe de la sécurité juridique l'infirmation d'un jugement affectant les droits et intérêts de tiers (Protsenko c. Russie, no 13151/04, §§ 29-34, 31 juillet 2008, Tishkevitch c. Russie, no 2202/05, §§ 25-27, 4 décembre 2008, et Tolstobrov c. Russie, no 11612/05, §§ 18-20, 4 mars 2010)) ou de concilier des intérêts opposés, tel le droit à un tribunal d'une personne et le droit à la sécurité juridique d'une autre personne.

 
• EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 44142/05

  ASMAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Departures from the legal certainty principle are justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see Kot, cited above, § 24; Protsenko v. Russia, no. 13151/04, §§ 25-34, 31 July 2008; and Tishkevich v. Russia, no. 2202/05, §§ 25-26, 4 December 2008).
• EGMR, 19.05.2020 - 55610/18

  RS INVESTMENT LTD v. SLOVAKIA

  Departures from the principle of legal certainty are thus justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character, the existence of which has to be examined case by case (see, e.g., Tishkevich v. Russia, no. 2202/05, §§ 25-26, 4 December 2008, and Sutyazhnik v. Russia, no. 8269/02, § 35, 23 July 2009).
• EGMR, 16.11.2010 - 46365/06

  BAGHATURIA v. GEORGIA

  The Court recalls that where a judgment debt is against a private person, and the main alleged cause of the non-enforcement is the bailiffs" conduct, it is appropriate to bring proceedings against those bailiffs to give the State a chance to put matters right internally (see, for example, Nazaretian v. Georgia (dec.), no. 13909/06, 7 July 2009; Samoylenko and Polonska v. Ukraine, no. 6566/05, § 25, 18 December 2008; Tishkevich v. Russia, no. 2202/05, § 17, 4 December 2008).
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 35361/17

  TÓTH v. SLOVAKIA

  Departures from the principle of legal certainty are thus justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character, the existence of which has to be examined on a case-by-case basis (see, for example, Tishkevich v. Russia, no. 2202/05, §§ 25-26, 4 December 2008, and Sutyazhnik v. Russia, no. 8269/02, § 35, 23 July 2009).
• EGMR, 19.05.2020 - 2749/17

  REDQUEST LIMITED v. SLOVAKIA

  Departures from the principle of legal certainty are thus justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character, the existence of which has to be examined case by case (see, e.g., Tishkevich v. Russia, no. 2202/05, §§ 25-26, 4 December 2008; and Sutyazhnik v. Russia, no. 8269/02, § 35, 23 July 2009).
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 74175/17

  PÁDEJ v. SLOVAKIA

  Departures from the principle of legal certainty are thus justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character, the existence of which has to be examined on a case-by-case basis (see, for example, Tishkevich v. Russia, no. 2202/05, §§ 25-26, 4 December 2008, and Sutyazhnik v. Russia, no. 8269/02, § 35, 23 July 2009).
• EGMR, 28.05.2014 - 30212/06

  KUZMIN v. RUSSIA

  Departures from that principle are justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see Kot v. Russia, no. 20887/03, § 24, 18 January 2007; Protsenko v. Russia, no. 13151/04, §§ 25-34, 31 July 2008; and Tishkevich v. Russia, no. 2202/05, §§ 25-26, 4 December 2008).