Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LISEYTSEVA AND MASLOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione personae) Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (20)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 27347/02

  KUCHERENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 39483/05

  For instance, the Court has found that legal entities could be considered "governmental organisations" if they performed specific public duties under the supervision of the State authorities (see Novoseletskiy v. Ukraine, no. 47148/99, § 82, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)), or were public enterprises operating in various areas of State activity, including the mining, energy and transportation sectors (see Romashov v. Ukraine, no. 67534/01, §§ 46-47, 27 July 2004; Kucherenko v. Ukraine, no. 27347/02, § 25, 15 December 2005; Lisyanskiy, cited above, § 19; and Yershova, cited above, §§ 57-62).
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 67534/01

  ROMASHOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 39483/05

  For instance, the Court has found that legal entities could be considered "governmental organisations" if they performed specific public duties under the supervision of the State authorities (see Novoseletskiy v. Ukraine, no. 47148/99, § 82, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)), or were public enterprises operating in various areas of State activity, including the mining, energy and transportation sectors (see Romashov v. Ukraine, no. 67534/01, §§ 46-47, 27 July 2004; Kucherenko v. Ukraine, no. 27347/02, § 25, 15 December 2005; Lisyanskiy, cited above, § 19; and Yershova, cited above, §§ 57-62).
• EGMR, 22.02.2005 - 47148/99

  NOVOSSELETSKI c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 39483/05

  For instance, the Court has found that legal entities could be considered "governmental organisations" if they performed specific public duties under the supervision of the State authorities (see Novoseletskiy v. Ukraine, no. 47148/99, § 82, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)), or were public enterprises operating in various areas of State activity, including the mining, energy and transportation sectors (see Romashov v. Ukraine, no. 67534/01, §§ 46-47, 27 July 2004; Kucherenko v. Ukraine, no. 27347/02, § 25, 15 December 2005; Lisyanskiy, cited above, § 19; and Yershova, cited above, §§ 57-62).

 
• EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 35091/02

  MIKHAÏLENKI ET AUTRES c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 39483/05

  35091/02, 35196/02, 35201/02, 35204/02, 35945/02, 35949/02, 35953/02, 36800/02, 38296/02 and 42814/02, §§ 43-46, ECHR 2004-XII), which concerned the issue of the State's liability for the debts of a State-owned company, the Court applied - mutatis mutandis and in the context of Article 34 of the Convention - the principles developed in Radio France (see paragraph 185 above).
• EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 25867/02

  ANOKHIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 39483/05

  The Court reiterates at the outset that, where an applicant complains of inability to enforce a court award in his or her favour, the extent of the State's obligations under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 varies depending on the debtor in the specific case (see Anokhin v. Russia (dec.), no. 25867/02, 31 May 2007).
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75529/01

  Verschleppter Prozess - Mann prozessiert seit 16 Jahren um Entschädigung nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 39483/05

  As regards the effectiveness of these remedies in the aggregate, the Court notes that the Government have neither alleged nor shown that a combination of two or more of them would satisfy the requirements of Article 13. It is therefore unnecessary to rule on this question (see Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 115, ECHR 2006-VII).
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 30616/05

  AKASHEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 39483/05

  Where a judgment is against the State, the latter must take the initiative to enforce it fully and in due time (see Akashev v. Russia, no. 30616/05, §§ 21-23, 12 June 2008, and Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, §§ 33-42, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 61603/00

  Konventionskonforme Auslegung des deutschen (Zivil-)Rechts …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 39483/05

  In the case of Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom (25 March 1993, § 27, Series A no. 247), the Court held that a State could not absolve itself from responsibility by delegating its obligations to private bodies or individuals (see also Storck v. Germany no. 61603/00, § 103, ECHR 2005-V).
• EKMR, 08.09.1997 - 35216/97

  RENFE contre l'ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 39483/05

  In RENFE the former Commission, in its reasoning leading it to find that the applicant lacked capacity to introduce an application under Article 25, considered that the applicant was a public law corporation, created by the State in order to run the State rail network as an industrial company; its board of directors was answerable to the Government and the applicant was the only undertaking with a licence to manage, direct and administer the State railways, with a certain public-service role in the way it did so (see RENFE v. Spain, no. 35216/97, Commission decision of 8 September 1997, DR 90-B).
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 36337/03

  KUNASHKO c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 39483/05

  When the debtor is a private individual or company, the situation is different, since the State is not, as a general rule, directly liable for the debts of private individuals or companies and its obligations under the Convention are limited to providing the necessary assistance to the creditor in the enforcement of the respective court awards, for example, through a bailiff service or bankruptcy procedures (see, for example, Kunashko v. Russia, no. 36337/03, §§ 38-49, 17 December 2009; Shestakov v. Russia (dec.), no. 48757/9, 18 June 2002; and Krivonogova v. Russia (dec.), no. 74694/01, 1 April 2004.).
• EGMR, 01.04.2004 - 74694/01

  KRIVONOGOVA v. RUSSIA

• EGMR, 22.02.2018 - 588/13

  Libert ./. Frankreich - Durchsuchung privater Computerinhalte durch Arbeitgeber …

  Au vu de la jurisprudence de la Cour relative à la notion d" « autorité publique'(voir en particulier Kotov c. Russie [GC] (no 54522/00, §§ 92-107, 3 avril 2012), Liseytseva et Maslov c. Russie (nos 39483/05 et 40527/10, §§ 183-192, 9 octobre 2014) et Samsonov c. Russie (déc.) (no 2880/10, §§ 63-66, 16 septembre 2014)), ces éléments conduisent à conférer à la SNCF cette qualité au sens de l'article 8 de la Convention.
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 23226/16

  NIKITIN AND OTHERS v. ESTONIA

  39483/05 and 40527/10, § 158, 9 October 2014; Rutkowski and Others v. Poland, nos.
• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 78042/16

  X ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Lorsqu'un gouvernement excipe du non-épuisement des voies de recours internes, il doit convaincre la Cour que le recours était effectif et disponible tant en théorie qu'en pratique à l'époque des faits, c'est-à-dire qu'il était accessible, susceptible d'offrir au requérant le redressement de ses griefs et présentait des perspectives raisonnables de succès (Selmouni c. France [GC], no 25803/94, § 76, CEDH 1999-V, et Liseytseva et Maslov c. Russie, nos 39483/05 et 40527/10, § 156, 9 octobre 2014).

 
• EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 14323/13

  POMUL S.R.L. ET SUBERVIN S.R.L. c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Lorsque le jugement est rendu contre l'État même, ce dernier doit prendre l'initiative de l'exécuter intégralement et en temps voulu (voir parmi beaucoup d'autres Prodan c. Moldova, no 49806/99, § 75, CEDH 2004-III (extraits), et Liseytseva et Maslov c. Russie, nos 39483/05 et 40527/10, § 183, 9 octobre 2014).
• EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 34336/10

  OOO TRUZHENIK-89 AND OOO FIRMA MOAZ v. RUSSIA

  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, 06.12.2018 - 54430/08

  MATVEYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The domestic provisions relevant to the cases on the legal status of State and municipal unitary enterprises with the right of economic control are summarised in Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia (nos. 39483/05 and 40527/10, §§ 54-127, 9 October 2014), and Samsonov v. Russia ((dec.) no. 2880/10, 18 September 2014).
• EGMR, 06.09.2018 - 3401/09

  DIMITAR YORDANOV v. BULGARIA

  For the Court, the fact that that company was a separate legal entity under domestic law (see, for example, Ilieva and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 17705/05, § 36, 3 February 2015) cannot be decisive to rule out the State's direct responsibility under the Convention (see Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia, nos. 39483/05 and 40527/10, § 188, 9 October 2014, and Ali?.ic and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 60642/08, § 114, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR - 78109/17 (anhängig)

  OOO SITI STROY v. RUSSIA and 6 other applications

  The applications concern complaints raised under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 relating to non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against unitary enterprises (GUPs, MUPs) and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia, nos. 39483/05 and 40527/10, 9 October 2014 and Samsonov v. Russia (dec.), no. 2880/10, 9 October 2014).
• EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 10535/09

  INDERKINY v. RUSSIA

  The domestic provisions relevant to cases on the legal status of State and municipal unitary enterprises with the right of economic control are summarised in Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia (nos. 39483/05 and 40527/10, §§ 54-127, 9 October 2014), and Samsonov v. Russia ((dec.) no. 2880/10, 18 September 2014).
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 36888/13

  MENSHIKOV v. RUSSIA

  The domestic provisions relevant to cases on the legal status of State and municipal unitary enterprises with the right of economic control are summarised in Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia (nos. 39483/05 and 40527/10, §§ 54-127, 9 October 2014), and Samsonov v. Russia ((dec.) no. 2880/10, 18 September 2014).
• EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 26920/09

  KARPESH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 13923/18 (anhängig)

  TOZIJA v. NORTH MACEDONIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 57691/09

  JKP VODOVOD KRALJEVO v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 26207/05

  ASTREDINOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 59020/09

  SHUKYUROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 19208/13

  POPOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.09.2020 - 9191/07

  BALASHOVA AND CHEREVICHNAYA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 22094/05

  KIM AND RYNDINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.03.2020 - 3752/08

  SOLONSKIY AND PETROVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 2576/10

  BOGDANOVA v. RUSSIA