Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KUZNETSOVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 19.01.2006 - 67579/01
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 67579/01

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

• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 67579/01

  The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 67579/01

  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, 28.10.1999 - 24846/94

  ZIELINSKI ET PRADAL & GONZALEZ ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 67579/01

  Respect for the rule of law and the notion of a fair trial require that any reasons adduced to justify such measures be treated with the greatest possible degree of circumspection (see The National & Provincial Building Society, the Leeds Permanent Building Society and the Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 October 1997, Reports 1997-VII, § 112; and Zielinski and Pradal & Gonzalez and Others v. France [GC], nos. 24846/94 and 34165/96 to 34173/96, § 57, ECHR 1999-VII).
• EGMR, 15.03.2001 - 30517/96

  AUNOLA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 67579/01

  In so far as the Government disputed the applicability of Article 1 of Protocol no. 1, the Court reiterates that the Convention does not guarantee, as such, the right to an old-age pension or any social benefit in a particular amount (see, for example, Aunola v. Finland (dec.), no. 30517/96, 15 March 2001).

• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 34356/06

  Immunität gilt auch bei Folter

  None of the parties to the present case has proposed relinquishment to the Grand Chamber and in any event it would remain for the Chamber to decide whether to act on any such request (see, for example, Hartman v. Czech Republic, no. 53341/99, § 8 in fine, ECHR 2003-VIII (extracts); and Kuznetsova v. Russia, no. 67579/01, § 5, 7 June 2007).