Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 13.04.2006 - 73225/01 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- HRR Strafrecht
Art. 6 Abs. 1 Satz 1 EMRK; Art. 34 Satz 2 EMRK; Art. 101 Abs. 1 Satz 2 GG
Gesetzlicher Richter gemäß Art. 6 EMRK (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren; Besetzung des Gerichts; mögliche Einzelfallprüfung: Überprüfung der tatsächlichen Wahrung des nationalen Rechts); Individualbeschwerde (Verbot der Behinderung durch den betroffenen Vertragsstaat: ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
FEDOTOVA v. RUSSIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 34 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 01.04.2004 - 73225/01
- EGMR, 13.04.2006 - 73225/01
- EGMR, 07.06.2017 - 73225/01
Wird zitiert von ... (13)
- EuGH, 12.09.2019 - C-542/18
Überprüfung - Gericht für den öffentlichen Dienst der Europäischen Union - …
Wegen des allgemeinen Grundsatzes, dem zufolge es in erster Linie Sache der nationalen Gerichte selbst ist, die nationalen Rechtsvorschriften auszulegen, ist der [EGMR] der Auffassung, dass er ihre Auslegung nicht in Frage stellen kann, es sei denn im Fall einer eklatanten Verletzung des nationalen Rechts"( 35 Urteil des EGMR vom 2. Mai 2019, Pasquini/San Marino, Beschwerde Nr. 50956/16, CE:ECHR:2019:0502JUD005095616, § 102 . Vgl. das vorausgegangene Urteil des EGMR vom 13. April 2006, Fedotova/Russland, Beschwerde Nr. 73225/01, CE:ECHR:2006:0413JUD007322501, § 42. < schließen ). - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 12.09.2019 - C-542/18 RX-II
Réexamen Simpson/ Rat
35 Urteil des EGMR vom 2. Mai 2019, Pasquini/San Marino, Beschwerde Nr. 50956/16, CE:ECHR:2019:0502JUD005095616, § 102. Vgl. das vorausgegangene Urteil des EGMR vom 13. April 2006, Fedotova/Russland, Beschwerde Nr. 73225/01, CE:ECHR:2006:0413JUD007322501, § 42. - EGMR, 20.07.2006 - 29458/04
SOKURENKO AND STRYGUN v. UKRAINE
The Court has also found that a court is not established by law where the rules governing the composition of a court have not been respected (as, for example, in Posokhov v. Russia, no. 63486/00, ECHR 2003-IV, judgment of 4 March 2003, and Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, 13 April 2006).
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 12.09.2019 - C-543/18 RX-II
Réexamen HG/ Kommission
35 Urteil des EGMR vom 2. Mai 2019, Pasquini/San Marino, Beschwerde Nr. 50956/16, CE:ECHR:2019:0502JUD005095616, § 102. Vgl. das vorausgegangene Urteil des EGMR vom 13. April 2006, Fedotova/Russland, Beschwerde Nr. 73225/01, CE:ECHR:2006:0413JUD007322501, § 42. - EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 30138/02
NURMAGOMEDOV v. RUSSIA
The expression "any form of pressure" must be taken to cover not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation of applicants or their legal representatives but also other improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage them from pursuing a Convention remedy or having a "chilling effect" on the exercise of the right of individual petition by applicants and their representatives (see Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, §§ 48-51, 13 April 2006; McShane v. the United Kingdom, no. 43290/98, § 151, 28 May 2002; and Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 130, ECHR 1999-IV, with further references). - EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 6110/03
KUPTSOV AND KUPTSOVA v. RUSSIA
A finding of a violation has been reached on account of the domestic authorities' failure to produce documentary evidence showing that the lay judges had been appointed to the office in accordance with the procedure established by domestic law, combined with the apparent failure to observe the requirements of the Lay Judges Act regarding the drawing of random lots and the maximum length of service per year (see, for example, Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, §§ 41-44, 13 April 2006, and Posokhov v. Russia, no. 63486/00, §§ 40-44, ECHR 2003-IV). - EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 27610/05
TANGIYEV v. RUSSIA
The expression "any form of pressure" must be taken to cover not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation of applicants or their legal representatives but also other improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage them from pursuing a Convention remedy or having a "chilling effect" on the exercise of the right of individual petition by applicants and their representatives (see Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, §§ 48-51, 13 April 2006; McShane v. the United Kingdom, no. 43290/98, § 151, 28 May 2002; and Tanrıkulu, cited above, § 130). - EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 11020/03
SHUGAYEV v. RUSSIA
The expression "any form of pressure" must be taken to cover not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation of applicants or their legal representatives but also other improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage them from pursuing a Convention remedy or having a "chilling effect" on the exercise of the right of individual petition by applicants and their representatives (see Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, §§ 48-51, 13 April 2006; McShane v. the United Kingdom, no. 43290/98, § 151, 28 May 2002; and Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 130, ECHR 1999-IV). - EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 19857/09
URMANOV v. RUSSIA
The expression "any form of pressure" must be taken to cover not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation of applicants or their legal representatives but also other improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage them from pursuing a Convention remedy or having a "chilling effect" on the exercise of the right of individual petition by applicants and their representatives (see Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, §§ 48-51, 13 April 2006; McShane v. the United Kingdom, no. 43290/98, § 151, 28 May 2002; and Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 130, ECHR 1999-IV). - EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 923/03
YELISEYEV v. RUSSIA
The expression "any form of pressure" must be taken to cover not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation of applicants or their legal representatives but also other improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage them from pursuing a Convention remedy or having a "chilling effect" on the exercise of the right of individual petition by applicants and their representatives (see Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 130, ECHR 1999-IV; McShane v. the United Kingdom, no. 43290/98, § 151, 28 May 2002; and Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, §§ 48-51, 13 April 2006). - EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 15438/05
ALPATU ISRAILOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 6945/04
ILATOVSKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 746/05
NINA KAZMINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA