Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANDROSOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 37-1 - Striking out applications) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 16.12.2003 - 63973/00
• EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 63973/00

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 63973/00

  The Court reiterates that a "claim" can constitute a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see Burdov v. Russia, cited above, § 40, and Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, p. 84, § 59).

  However a "claim" - even concerning a pension or a social benefit - can constitute a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see Stran Greek Refineries v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301, § 59).

• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99

  RIABYKH c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 63973/00

  The Court finds that this case is similar to the case of Ryabykh v. Russia (no. 52854/99, ECHR 2003-IX), where it was said, in so far as relevant to the instant case:.
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

  PRESSOS COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 63973/00

  The Court considers that by depriving the applicant of the right to benefit from the pension in the amount secured in a final judgment, the State upset a fair balance between the interests at stake (see, mutatis mutandis Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, § 43).".

 
• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

  SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 63973/00

  The Court first notes that the dispute as to the increase of the applicant's social payments in connection with his disability and participation in the emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster was of a pecuniary nature and indisputably concerned a civil right within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, p. 17, § 46; Massa v. Italy, judgment of 24 August 1993, Series A no. 265-B, p. 20, § 26; Süßmann v. Germany, judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, p. 1170, § 42 and, as a recent authority, Trickovic v. Slovenia, no. 39914/98, § 40, 12 June 2001).
• EGMR, 24.08.1993 - 14399/88

  MASSA v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 63973/00

  The Court first notes that the dispute as to the increase of the applicant's social payments in connection with his disability and participation in the emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster was of a pecuniary nature and indisputably concerned a civil right within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, p. 17, § 46; Massa v. Italy, judgment of 24 August 1993, Series A no. 265-B, p. 20, § 26; Süßmann v. Germany, judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, p. 1170, § 42 and, as a recent authority, Trickovic v. Slovenia, no. 39914/98, § 40, 12 June 2001).
• EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 37453/97

  AKMAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 63973/00

  On the facts, the Court observes that the Government failed to submit with the Court any formal statement capable of falling into the latter category and offering a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (see, by contrast, to Akman v. Turkey (striking out), no. 37453/97, §§ 23-24, ECHR 2001-VI).

• EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 6987/07

  GUSEVA v. BULGARIA

  Therefore, the period of around two years during which the applicant could not seek damages in law was in itself sufficiently long to be considered problematic under the Convention (see Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00, § 53, 6 October 2005, where the Court held that a delay of a year and 12 days to enforce a final judgment against the regional authorities had been too long).
• EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 6571/04

  IGOR VASILCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  A delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances, but the delay must not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected under Article 6 § 1 (see Burdov, cited above, § 35; Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00, § 52, 6 October 2005; and Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 20, 13 January 2005, Raylyan v. Russia, no. 22000/03, § 29, 15 February 2007).
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 9549/05

  PANASENKO v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that the existence of a debt confirmed by a binding and enforceable judgment constitutes the beneficiary's "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Quashing of such a judgment amounts to an interference with his or her right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (see, among other authorities, Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 74, ECHR 1999-VII, and Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00, § 69, 6 October 2005).

 
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 26410/02

  KAZARTSEV v. RUSSIA

  Whilst under certain circumstances an application may indeed be struck out of the Court's list of cases under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by the respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued, this procedure is not, as such, intended to circumvent the applicant's opposition to a friendly settlement (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, § 76, ECHR 2003; and Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00, § 44, 6 October 2005).
• EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 32786/03

  SILCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  75025/01, 75026/01 et seq., 23 March 2006; and Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00, § 44, 6 October 2005).
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 42234/04

  BORODKIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that the existence of a debt confirmed by a binding and enforceable judgment constitutes the beneficiary's "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Quashing of such a judgment amounts to an interference with his or her right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (see, among other authorities, Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 74, ECHR 1999-VII, and Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00, § 69, 6 October 2005).
• EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 28730/03

  LENSKAYA v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that the existence of a debt confirmed by a binding and enforceable judgment furnishes the judgment beneficiary with a "legitimate expectation" that the debt would be paid, and constitutes the beneficiary's "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Quashing such a judgment amounts to an interference with his or her right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (see, among other authorities, Brumarescu v. Romania, cited above, § 74, ECHR, and Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00, § 69, 6 October 2005).
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 4543/02

  KOROTKIKH v. RUSSIA

  Furthermore, the Court observes that a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, declarations made in the context of strictly confidential friendly-settlement proceedings (Article 38 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court) and, on the other hand, unilateral declarations made by a respondent Government in public and adversarial proceedings before the Court (see Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00, § 45, 6 October 2005).
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 26307/02

  SHIRYKALOVA v. RUSSIA

  Furthermore, the Court observes that a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, declarations made in the context of strictly confidential friendly-settlement proceedings (Article 38 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court) and, on the other hand, unilateral declarations made by a respondent Government in public and adversarial proceedings before the Court (see Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00, § 45, 6 October 2005).
• EGMR, 31.01.2008 - 42752/04

  PLEKHOVA v. RUSSIA

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to those in the present case (see, among other authorities, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III; Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00, 6 October 2005; and Gorokhov and Rusyayev v. Russia, no. 38305/02, 17 March 2005).
• EGMR, 30.11.2006 - 31276/02

  KOLYADA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.11.2006 - 10833/03

  SHITIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 16583/04

  GRIBANENKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 27440/03

  FINKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.02.2007 - 3436/05

  ALEKSANDR IVANOV v. RUSSIA