Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16903/03 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,56857) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
DENISOVA AND MOISEYEVA v. RUSSIA
(englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 16903/03
- EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16903/03
- EGMR, 27.03.2019 - 16903/03
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (9)
- EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97
COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16903/03
In particular, if one or more heads of damage cannot be calculated precisely or if the distinction between pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage proves difficult, the Court may decide to make a global assessment (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 29, ECHR 2000-IV). - EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 4171/04
GRIDIN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16903/03
As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court reiterates its constant position that an applicant cannot be required to furnish any proof of non-pecuniary damage he or she has sustained (see, among many others, Antipenkov v. Russia, no. 33470/03, § 82, 15 October 2009; Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 35, 14 February 2008; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 113, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts); and Gridin v. Russia, no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006). - EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00
Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16903/03
It should be recalled that the Court has frequently rejected Governments" submissions to the effect that the applicant can ask for compensation in domestic courts in respect of the violation found by the Court (see Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (Article 50), 31 October 1995, § 40, Series A no. 330-B; De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium (Article 50), 10 March 1972, § 15-16, Series A no. 14; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 129, ECHR 2006-IX; and a/s Diena and Ozolins v. Latvia, no. 16657/03, § 92, 12 July 2007, and the references cited therein).
- EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 38411/02
GARABAYEV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16903/03
As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court reiterates its constant position that an applicant cannot be required to furnish any proof of non-pecuniary damage he or she has sustained (see, among many others, Antipenkov v. Russia, no. 33470/03, § 82, 15 October 2009; Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 35, 14 February 2008; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 113, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts); and Gridin v. Russia, no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006). - EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 16657/03
A/S DIENA ET OZOLINS c. LETTONIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16903/03
It should be recalled that the Court has frequently rejected Governments" submissions to the effect that the applicant can ask for compensation in domestic courts in respect of the violation found by the Court (see Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (Article 50), 31 October 1995, § 40, Series A no. 330-B; De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium (Article 50), 10 March 1972, § 15-16, Series A no. 14; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 129, ECHR 2006-IX; and a/s Diena and Ozolins v. Latvia, no. 16657/03, § 92, 12 July 2007, and the references cited therein). - EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 30422/03
PSHENICHNYY v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16903/03
As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court reiterates its constant position that an applicant cannot be required to furnish any proof of non-pecuniary damage he or she has sustained (see, among many others, Antipenkov v. Russia, no. 33470/03, § 82, 15 October 2009; Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 35, 14 February 2008; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 113, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts); and Gridin v. Russia, no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006). - EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 33470/03
ANTIPENKOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16903/03
As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court reiterates its constant position that an applicant cannot be required to furnish any proof of non-pecuniary damage he or she has sustained (see, among many others, Antipenkov v. Russia, no. 33470/03, § 82, 15 October 2009; Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 35, 14 February 2008; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 113, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts); and Gridin v. Russia, no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006). - EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 302/02
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES OF MOSCOW AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16903/03
However, it is noted that, pursuant to the Russian Constitutional Court's judgment no. 4-P of 26 February 2010, the Court's judgments are binding on Russia and a finding of a violation of the Convention or its Protocols by the Court is a ground for reopening civil proceedings under Article 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure and review of the domestic judgments in the light of the Convention principles established by the Court (see Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia, no. 302/02, § 206, ECHR 2010-... (extracts)). - EGMR, 22.06.1972 - 2614/65
RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA (ARTICLE 50)
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16903/03
A "necessity" to apply Article 41 exists "once a respondent government refuses the applicant reparation to which he considers he is entitled" (see Ringeisen v. Austria (Article 50), 22 June 1972, § 22, Series A no. 15).