Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VELSKAYA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 59498/00

  BURDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 21769/03

  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, ECHR 2002-III).

  Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III; and, more recently, Poznakhirina v. Russia, no. 25964/02, 24 February 2005; Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, 18 November 2004), the Court finds that by failing to comply with the judgment of 28 November 2002 in the applicant's favour the domestic authorities violated her right to a court and prevented her from receiving the money which she was entitled to receive.

• EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 15021/02

  WASSERMAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 21769/03

  Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III; and, more recently, Poznakhirina v. Russia, no. 25964/02, 24 February 2005; Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, 18 November 2004), the Court finds that by failing to comply with the judgment of 28 November 2002 in the applicant's favour the domestic authorities violated her right to a court and prevented her from receiving the money which she was entitled to receive.
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 25964/02

  POZNAKHIRINA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 21769/03

  Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III; and, more recently, Poznakhirina v. Russia, no. 25964/02, 24 February 2005; Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, 18 November 2004), the Court finds that by failing to comply with the judgment of 28 November 2002 in the applicant's favour the domestic authorities violated her right to a court and prevented her from receiving the money which she was entitled to receive.

• EGMR, 23.07.2009 - 756/05

  MARKOVTSI AND SELIVANOV v. RUSSIA

  In the present cases the judgments in the applicants' favour were enforceable until at least the respective dates of quashing and it was incumbent on the State to abide by their terms (see Velskaya v. Russia, no. 21769/03, § 18, 5 October 2006).
• EGMR, 21.07.2020 - 3333/08

  TATUYEV v. RUSSIA

  It was incumbent on the State to abide by its terms (see, among others, Velskaya v. Russia, no. 21769/03, § 18, 5 October 2006, and Markovtsi and Selivanov v. Russia, nos. 756/05 and 25761/05, § 29, 23 July 2009).
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 38585/04

  SIZINTSEVA v. RUSSIA

  In the present cases the judgments in the applicants' favour were enforceable until at least the respective dates of quashing and it was incumbent on the State to abide by their terms (see Velskaya v. Russia, no. 21769/03, § 18, 5 October 2006).