Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KUZHELEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Reasonable time);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KUZHELEV v. RUSSIA and 3 other applications

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 35091/02

  MIKHAÏLENKI ET AUTRES c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 64098/09

  The Court further reiterates that a State may be responsible for debts of a State-owned company, even if the company is a separate legal entity, provided that it does not enjoy sufficient institutional and operational independence from the State to absolve the latter from its responsibility under the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Mykhaylenky and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 35091/02 and 9 others, §§ 43-46, ECHR 2004-XII; Cooperativa Agricola Slobozia-Hanesei v. Moldova, no. 39745/02, §§ 17-19, 3 April 2007; Yershova, cited above, §§ 54-63; and Kotov [GC], cited above, §§ 92-107).
• EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 25867/02

  ANOKHIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 64098/09

  Additional factors to be taken into consideration are whether the State was directly responsible for the company's financial difficulties, siphoned the corporate funds to the detriment of the company and its stakeholders, failed to keep an arm's-length relationship with the company or otherwise acted in abuse of the corporate form (see Alisic and Others, cited above, § 115, and the references to Anokhin v. Russia (dec.), no. 25867/02, 31 May 2007, and Khachatryan, cited above, §§ 51-55, contained therein).
• EGMR, 03.04.2007 - 39745/02

  COOPERATIVA AGRICOLA SLOBOZIA-HANESEI v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 64098/09

  The Court further reiterates that a State may be responsible for debts of a State-owned company, even if the company is a separate legal entity, provided that it does not enjoy sufficient institutional and operational independence from the State to absolve the latter from its responsibility under the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Mykhaylenky and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 35091/02 and 9 others, §§ 43-46, ECHR 2004-XII; Cooperativa Agricola Slobozia-Hanesei v. Moldova, no. 39745/02, §§ 17-19, 3 April 2007; Yershova, cited above, §§ 54-63; and Kotov [GC], cited above, §§ 92-107).
• EGMR, 30.07.2015 - 39678/03

  VORONKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 64098/09

  As regards the award in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and even assuming that the reference to the delayed payment of salary by the FGUP could be regarded as acknowledgment of a violation, the award of EUR 22 was manifestly unreasonable in comparison with the awards made by the Court in similar cases (see, for example, Voronkov v. Russia, no. 39678/03, §§ 68-69, 30 July 2015).

• EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 10393/22

  UTZERI v. ITALY

  In fact, while the primary responsibility for enforcement of a judgment against the State lies with the authorities, they cannot comply with their obligations without the applicants' minimal cooperation to that effect (see Gadzhikhanov and Saukov v. Russia, nos. 10511/08 and 5866/09, § 29, 31 January 2012, and Kuzhelev and Others v. Russia, nos. 64098/09 and 6 others, § 106, 15 October 2019).
• EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 7997/21

  DI GIUSEPPE v. ITALY

  In fact, while the primary responsibility for enforcement of a judgment against the State lies with the authorities, they cannot comply with their obligations without the applicants' minimal cooperation to that effect (Gadzhikhanov and Saukov v. Russia, nos. 10511/08 and 5866/09, § 29, 31 January 2012, and Kuzhelev and Others v. Russia, nos. 64098/09 and 6 others, § 106, 15 October 2019).
• EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 34336/10

  OOO TRUZHENIK-89 AND OOO FIRMA MOAZ v. RUSSIA

  Further, as regards the claims submitted in case no. 34336/10, the adequacy of the compensation would be diminished if it were to be paid without reference to various circumstances liable to reduce its value, such as an extended delay in enforcement (see, mutatis mutandis, Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 28, 13 January 2005, and Kuzhelev and Others v. Russia, nos. 64098/09 and 6 others, §§ 149-50, 15 October 2019).
• EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 71325/16

  KALMYKOV v. RUSSIA

  Remainder of the applicant's grievances under Article 3 of the Convention 10. As regards the remaining complaints of the applicant under Article 3 of the Convention related to his conditions of detention and transport, the Court considers that in view of its findings in paragraphs 6-9 above, it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of these grievances (see, for similar approach, Kuzhelev and Others v. Russia, nos. 64098/09 and 6 others, § 140, 15 October 2019; Magomedov and Others v. Russia, nos. 33636/09 and 9 others, § 103, 28 March 2017, and S.C. Britanic World S.R.L. v. Romania, no. 8602/09, § 50, 26 April 2016).