Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OOO TRUZHENIK-89 AND OOO FIRMA MOAZ v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  OOO TRUZHENIK - 89 v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 25964/02

  POZNAKHIRINA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 34336/10

  As regards the pecuniary damage, the most appropriate form of redress is to ensure that the applicant as far as possible is put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of Article 6 not been disregarded (see Poznakhirina v. Russia, no. 25964/02, § 33, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 13.01.2005 - 5124/03

  GIZZATOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 34336/10

  Further, as regards the claims submitted in case no. 34336/10, the adequacy of the compensation would be diminished if it were to be paid without reference to various circumstances liable to reduce its value, such as an extended delay in enforcement (see, mutatis mutandis, Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 28, 13 January 2005, and Kuzhelev and Others v. Russia, nos. 64098/09 and 6 others, §§ 149-50, 15 October 2019).
• EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 39483/05

  LISEYTSEVA AND MASLOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 34336/10

  The applications concern the non-enforcement of judgments in the applicant companies' favour issued against a State unitary enterprise (for the legal status of unitary enterprises, see Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia, nos. 39483/05 and 40527/10, §§ 54-127, 9 October 2014).

 
• EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 2269/06

  R. KACAPOR AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 34336/10

  These considerations are sufficient for the Court to conclude that the debtor GUP did not enjoy sufficient institutional and operational independence from the authorities at the time of the events (see R. Kacapor and Others v. Serbia, nos. 2269/06 and 5 others, §§ 98-99, 15 January 2008).
• EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 64931/10

  STOSIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 34336/10

  The Court awards the applicant companies the amounts specified in the Appendix, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage, less any amounts which may have already been paid in that regard at the domestic level (see, in so far as relevant, Stosic v. Serbia, no. 64931/10, § 65, 1 October 2013).
• EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 48028/07

  ZHDANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 34336/10

  48028/07 and 15 others, §§ 63-64, 28 June 2016).
• EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 64098/09

  KUZHELEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 34336/10

  Further, as regards the claims submitted in case no. 34336/10, the adequacy of the compensation would be diminished if it were to be paid without reference to various circumstances liable to reduce its value, such as an extended delay in enforcement (see, mutatis mutandis, Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 28, 13 January 2005, and Kuzhelev and Others v. Russia, nos. 64098/09 and 6 others, §§ 149-50, 15 October 2019).
• EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 48978/11

  GOBAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 34336/10

  Accordingly, there is no reason to depart from the Court's settled approach to the State responsibility for the debts of unitary enterprises on the ground that the company has not been formally liquidated (see, for a similar approach, Gobayev v. Russia [Committee], no. 48978/11, §§ 55-60, 15 October 2019, and contrast to Zhdanov and Others v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], nos.
• EGMR, 30.07.2015 - 39678/03

  VORONKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 34336/10

  Further, having regard to its settled case-law (see Voronkov v. Russia, no. 39678/03, §§ 68-69, 30 July 2015), the Court awards each applicant company EUR 2, 000, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and dismisses the remainder of the claims under this head.

• EGMR - 78109/17 (anhängig)

  OOO SITI STROY v. RUSSIA and 6 other applications

  On 22/11/2021 a first-instance court discontinued the insolvency proceedings (for details concerning the debtor company's legal status and activities, the sub-contract agreements and the insolvency proceedings, see OOO Truzhenik-89 and OOO Firma Moaz v. Russia [Committee], nos. 34336/10 and 30108/13, §§ 1-17, 8 March 2022).