Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHURYGINA AND OTHERS 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);Violation ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 17.05.2005 - 74456/01

  HORVATHOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 2982/05

  The Court has previously accepted that close relatives of applicants who have died can maintain applications that include complaints concerning various aspects of Article 6 of the Convention (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; Andreyeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 76737/01, 16 October 2003; Shiryayeva v. Russia, no. 21417/04, § 8, 13 July 2006 (concerning the non-enforcement of domestic judgments); and Horváthová v. Slovakia, no. 74456/01, § 26, 17 May 2005 (in the context of the length of proceedings); and contrast with Gorodnichev v. Russia (dec.), no. 52058/99, 24 May 2007; and, in so far as relevant, Stankevich v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 48814/07, 26 May 2009).
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 52058/99

  GORODNITCHEV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 2982/05

  The Court has previously accepted that close relatives of applicants who have died can maintain applications that include complaints concerning various aspects of Article 6 of the Convention (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; Andreyeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 76737/01, 16 October 2003; Shiryayeva v. Russia, no. 21417/04, § 8, 13 July 2006 (concerning the non-enforcement of domestic judgments); and Horváthová v. Slovakia, no. 74456/01, § 26, 17 May 2005 (in the context of the length of proceedings); and contrast with Gorodnichev v. Russia (dec.), no. 52058/99, 24 May 2007; and, in so far as relevant, Stankevich v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 48814/07, 26 May 2009).
• EGMR, 24.09.2002 - 42295/98

  NERVA ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 2982/05

  The Court has also found in a number of cases relating to claims under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that applications concerning property rights are, in principle, transferable to heirs (see, among other authorities, Nerva and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 42295/98, § 33, ECHR 2002-VIII, and Sobelin and Others v. Russia, nos. 30672/03 et al., §§ 43-45, 3 May 2007, for issues relating to both Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention).

 
• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 30672/03

  SOBELIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 2982/05

  The Court has also found in a number of cases relating to claims under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that applications concerning property rights are, in principle, transferable to heirs (see, among other authorities, Nerva and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 42295/98, § 33, ECHR 2002-VIII, and Sobelin and Others v. Russia, nos. 30672/03 et al., §§ 43-45, 3 May 2007, for issues relating to both Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention).
• EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 48814/07

  STANKEVICH v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 2982/05

  The Court has previously accepted that close relatives of applicants who have died can maintain applications that include complaints concerning various aspects of Article 6 of the Convention (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; Andreyeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 76737/01, 16 October 2003; Shiryayeva v. Russia, no. 21417/04, § 8, 13 July 2006 (concerning the non-enforcement of domestic judgments); and Horváthová v. Slovakia, no. 74456/01, § 26, 17 May 2005 (in the context of the length of proceedings); and contrast with Gorodnichev v. Russia (dec.), no. 52058/99, 24 May 2007; and, in so far as relevant, Stankevich v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 48814/07, 26 May 2009).
• EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 36919/02

  ARMONIENE v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 2982/05

  In assessing the transferability of complaints, the former Commission and the Court have taken into account, for example, the fact that the link between the complaints at stake and the deceased applicant was not exclusive, and that the late applicant's next of kin had personally suffered consequences (see, in the context of Article 6 of the Convention, Funke v. France, no. 10828/84, Commission decision of 6 October 1988, Decisions and Reports 57, p. 18), that the heirs had an interest of their own (see, regarding Article 8 of the Convention, Armoniene v. Lithuania, no. 36919/02, § 29, 25 November 2008), or that the domestic proceedings concerned the late applicant's pecuniary rights (see Jeruzal v. Poland, no. 65888/01, § 25, 10 October 2006).
• EGMR, 16.10.2003 - 76737/01

  ANDREYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 2982/05

  The Court has previously accepted that close relatives of applicants who have died can maintain applications that include complaints concerning various aspects of Article 6 of the Convention (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; Andreyeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 76737/01, 16 October 2003; Shiryayeva v. Russia, no. 21417/04, § 8, 13 July 2006 (concerning the non-enforcement of domestic judgments); and Horváthová v. Slovakia, no. 74456/01, § 26, 17 May 2005 (in the context of the length of proceedings); and contrast with Gorodnichev v. Russia (dec.), no. 52058/99, 24 May 2007; and, in so far as relevant, Stankevich v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 48814/07, 26 May 2009).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 21417/04

  SHIRYAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 2982/05

  The Court has previously accepted that close relatives of applicants who have died can maintain applications that include complaints concerning various aspects of Article 6 of the Convention (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; Andreyeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 76737/01, 16 October 2003; Shiryayeva v. Russia, no. 21417/04, § 8, 13 July 2006 (concerning the non-enforcement of domestic judgments); and Horváthová v. Slovakia, no. 74456/01, § 26, 17 May 2005 (in the context of the length of proceedings); and contrast with Gorodnichev v. Russia (dec.), no. 52058/99, 24 May 2007; and, in so far as relevant, Stankevich v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 48814/07, 26 May 2009).
• EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 65888/01

  JERUZAL v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 2982/05

  In assessing the transferability of complaints, the former Commission and the Court have taken into account, for example, the fact that the link between the complaints at stake and the deceased applicant was not exclusive, and that the late applicant's next of kin had personally suffered consequences (see, in the context of Article 6 of the Convention, Funke v. France, no. 10828/84, Commission decision of 6 October 1988, Decisions and Reports 57, p. 18), that the heirs had an interest of their own (see, regarding Article 8 of the Convention, Armoniene v. Lithuania, no. 36919/02, § 29, 25 November 2008), or that the domestic proceedings concerned the late applicant's pecuniary rights (see Jeruzal v. Poland, no. 65888/01, § 25, 10 October 2006).

• EGMR, 24.11.2020 - 41760/09

  KAPLAN c. RUSSIE

  Ainsi, la Cour a des doutes sur un intérêt légitime suffisant de Mme Zilbershteyn au maintien de la requête (Belskiy c. Russie (déc.), no 23593/03, 26 novembre 2009, voir aussi, pour un exemple récent, Shurygina et autres c. Russie [comité], nos 2982/05 et 2 autres, § 14, 15 mars 2016, et, a contrario, Streltsov et autres affaires « retraités militaires de Novocherkassk'c. Russie, nos 8549/06 et 86 autres, § 37, 29 juillet 2010).
• EGMR, 08.03.2018 - 25675/04

  CORNE v. ROMANIA

  Having claimed to be the applicant's only heir, Ms Maria Magdalena Corne did not provide any document, such as a succession certificate, to confirm acceptance of the late applicant's succession (see Rista and Others v. Albania [Committee], nos. 5207/10 and 6 others, § 34, 17 March 2016, and Shurygina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 2982/05 and 3 others, § 16, 15 March 2016) or even any statement confirming that she had accepted the succession after her deceased father (contrast Kotova and Others v. Russia, nos. 3585/08 and 16 others, 21 June 2016), or any other documents or detailed information which could be of relevance in her particular case (contrast Andreyeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 76737/01, 16 October 2003).
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 14700/06

  SHCHERBAK v. RUSSIA

  2982/05, 5991/05, 9546/05 and 24130/06, § 16, 15 March 2016).