Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  THE MREVLI FOUNDATION v. GEORGIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 59498/00

  BURDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.05.2009 - 25491/04

  As to the complaint concerning the arbitrary involvement of the Ministry which resulted in the quashing of the final judgment of 17 October 2000 and the reopening of the civil proceedings, the Court observes that the above-mentioned judgment provided the applicant foundation with an "enforceable claim" which constituted a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol 1 (see, among other authorities, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 40, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99

  RIABYKH c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.05.2009 - 25491/04

  It further observes that quashing such a judgment after it has become final constitutes an interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of the possessions of the successful party (see Brumarescu, cited above, § 74; Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 61, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 69529/01

  PRAVEDNAYA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.05.2009 - 25491/04

  The review cannot be treated as an "appeal in disguise", and the mere possibility that there may be different opinions on the subject is not a ground for a re-examination (see Pravednaya v. Russia, no. 69529/01, § 25, 18 November 2004; Sukhobokov v. Russia, no. 75470/01, §§ 25 and 26, 13 April 2006).
• EGMR, 13.04.2006 - 75470/01

  SUKHOBOKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.05.2009 - 25491/04

  The review cannot be treated as an "appeal in disguise", and the mere possibility that there may be different opinions on the subject is not a ground for a re-examination (see Pravednaya v. Russia, no. 69529/01, § 25, 18 November 2004; Sukhobokov v. Russia, no. 75470/01, §§ 25 and 26, 13 April 2006).

• EGMR, 07.10.2021 - 24941/13

  RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY OF UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH KYIV PATRIARCHATE IN MOSTYSKA v. …

  The Court's general approach has been to consider the six-month period as running from the decision setting aside a decision in breach of the principle of legal certainty and not from any subsequent proceedings which follow from such an alleged breach (see, mutatis mutandis, Voloshchuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 51394/99, 14 October 2003; Sardin v. Russia (dec.), no. 69582/01, ECHR 2004 II; and Mrevli Foundation v. Georgia (dec.), no. 25491/04, 5 May 2009).
• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 44326/13

  MANUKYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA

  The Court reiterates that the quashing of a final judgment is an instantaneous act which does not create a continuing situation, even if it entails the reopening of the proceedings, as in the instant cases (see, among many other authorities, The Mrevli Foundation v. Georgia (dec.), no. 25491/04, 5 May 2009; Sardin v. Russia (dec.), no. 69582/01, ECHR 2004-II and Khanyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 19065/05, 5 July 2007).
• EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 14722/08

  VALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Therefore, even if the original judgment of 29 August 2006 had been upheld in the course of these proceedings, this would not have remedied the alleged breach of the principle of legal certainty, given the below-mentioned (see paragraph 44 below) instantaneous nature of the violation resulting from the act of quashing (see The Mrevli Foundation v. Georgia (dec.), no. 25491/04, 5 May 2009).