Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 69582/01   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2004,35514
EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 69582/01 (https://dejure.org/2004,35514)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12.02.2004 - 69582/01 (https://dejure.org/2004,35514)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12. Februar 2004 - 69582/01 (https://dejure.org/2004,35514)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,35514) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (34)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

  • EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99

    RIABYKH c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 69582/01
    The Court recalls its constant case-law to the effect that the quashing by a higher court, by way of supervisory review on application of a prosecutor or another State official, of a judicial decision which had become final and binding may render the litigant's right to a court illusory and infringe the principle of legal certainty (see Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 62, ECHR 1999-VII; Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, §§ 56-58, 24 July 2003).

    In any event, the Court has previously considered any subsequent attempts to conduct supervisory review in the matter which had been once determined in a final judgment that was later quashed, not to be conducive to an improvement of legal certainty (see Ryabykh v. Russia (dec.), no. 52854/99, 21 February 2002).

  • EGMR, 14.10.2003 - 51394/99

    VOLOSHCHUK contre l'UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 69582/01
    The Court further notes that the quashing of a final judgment is an instantaneous act, which does not create a continuing situation, even if it entails a re-opening of the proceedings as in the instant case (see, mutatis mutandis, Voloshchuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 51394/99, 14 October 2003).
  • EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

    VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 69582/01
    As to the applicant's complaint about an alleged deprivation of medical and other benefits, the Court recalls that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not guarantee the right to acquire possessions (see, mutatis mutandis, Marckx v. Belgium, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 23, § 50; Van der Mussele v. Belgium, judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, § 48) and therefore it could not be construed as guaranteeing a favourable outcome of the litigation over social benefits.
  • EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

    MARCKX v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 69582/01
    As to the applicant's complaint about an alleged deprivation of medical and other benefits, the Court recalls that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not guarantee the right to acquire possessions (see, mutatis mutandis, Marckx v. Belgium, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 23, § 50; Van der Mussele v. Belgium, judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, § 48) and therefore it could not be construed as guaranteeing a favourable outcome of the litigation over social benefits.
  • EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 50178/99

    NIKITINE c. RUSSIE

    However, it had no decisive impact on the fairness of the procedure for reopening as a whole, which was primarily a matter for the Presidium's deliberation (see, mutatis mutandis, Voloshchuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 51394/99, 14 October 2003, and Sardin v. Russia (dec.), no. 69582/01, ECHR 2004-II).
  • EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 33771/02

    DRIZA c. ALBANIE

    The fact that this remedy was revoked after the occurrence of the pertinent events in this case is of no relevance: there exist no domestic remedies capable of remedying the impairment of the principle of legal certainty brought about by the use of the supervisory-review procedure and its effects were never redressed in the present case (see Sardin v. Russia (dec.), no. 69582/01, ECHR 2004-II, and Ryabykh v. Russia (dec.), no. 52854/99, 21 February 2002).
  • EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17

    RUSTAVI 2 BROADCASTING COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

    In the light of the above-mentioned case-law principles, the Court considers that the second to fourth applicants" complaints about the outcome of the ownership dispute do not raise a prima facie issue under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Indeed, this provision cannot be construed as a guarantee that the desired outcome will be obtained in civil litigation (see, for instance, Burdiashvili and Others v. Georgia (dec.), no. 26290/12, § 36, 4 April 2017; see, mutatis mutandis, Slivenko and Others v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 121, ECHR 2002-II (extracts); and see Sardin v. Russia (dec.), no. 69582/01, ECHR 2004-II).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht