Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOT v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 7, Art. 14, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings ...

Wird zitiert von ... (21)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 20887/03

  The Court has to have regard, inter alia, to the complexity of the factual or legal issues raised by the case, to the conduct of the applicants and the competent authorities and to what was at stake for the former (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 50178/99

  NIKITINE c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 20887/03

  The Court has to assess whether the power to conduct a supervisory review was exercised by the authorities so as to strike, to the maximum extent possible, a fair balance between the interests of the individual and the need to ensure the proper administration of justice (see, among other authorities, Nikitin v. Russia, no. 50178/99, §§ 57-59, ECHR 2004-...).

• EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 4455/10

  MARGUS v. CROATIA

  Furthermore, according to the "new" Court's well-established case-law in terms of Article 6 § 1, only exceptional circumstances (that is, a "fundamental defect") warrant the quashing of a final judicial decision by way of supervisory review (see, among many other authorities, Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, ECHR 2003-X; Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, ECHR 1999-VII; and Kot v. Russia, no. 20887/03, 18 January 2007).
• EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 57818/09

  LASHMANKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Departures from that principle are justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, §§ 51 and 52, ECHR 2003-IX, and Kot v. Russia, no. 20887/03, §§ 23 and 24, 18 January 2007).
• EGMR, 23.07.2009 - 8269/02

  SUTYAZHNIK v. RUSSIA

  In the case of Kot v. Russia (no. 20887/03, § 29, 18 January 2007), the Court developed that logic.

  As the Court reiterates in the present judgment (see paragraphs § 33-34 of the judgment), a departure from the principle of legal certainty is justified only when this is made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see, inter alia, Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IX, and Kot v. Russia, no. 20887/03, § 29, 18 January 2007).

 
• EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 31620/15

  NASKOV AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  To conclude, the quashing of the final 2002 restitution order in the present case as a result of the proceedings that were initiated for administrative enforcement frustrated the applicants' reliance on a binding decision and deprived them of an opportunity to gain possession of the property that they had legitimately expected to receive (see, mutatis mutandis, Kot v. Russia, no. 20887/03, § 33, 18 January 2007).
• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 13151/04

  PROTSENKO v. RUSSIA

  Departures from that principle are justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-X, and Kot v. Russia, no. 20887/03, § 24, 18 January 2007).
• EGMR, 23.11.2021 - 40444/17

  KOOPERATIV NEPTUN SERVIS c. RUSSIE

  Seuls des « vices fondamentaux'peuvent justifier l'infirmation d'une décision revêtue de l'autorité de la chose jugée (Kot c. Russie, no 20887/03, § 24, 18 janvier 2007).
• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 8549/06

  STRELTSOV AND OTHER

  Departures from that principle are justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see Kot v. Russia, no. 20887/03, § 24, 18 January 2007, and Protsenko v. Russia, no. 13151/04, §§ 25-34, 31 July 2008; and Tishkevich v. Russia, no. 2202/05, §§ 25-26, 4 December 2008).
• EGMR, 28.05.2014 - 47388/06

  SAMAROV v. RUSSIA

  The relevant domestic law governing the supervisory review procedure at the material time is summed up in the Court's judgment in the case of Kot v. Russia (no. 20887/03, § 17, 18 January 2007).
• EGMR, 28.05.2014 - 2173/04

  KHANUSTARANOV v. RUSSIA

  Departures from that principle are justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IX; Kot v. Russia, no. 20887/03, § 24, 18 January 2007; and Dovguchits v. Russia, no. 2999/03, § 27, 7 June 2007).
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 24349/05

  POGOSYAN v. RUSSIA

  The relevant domestic law governing the supervisory review procedure in force between 1 February 2003 and 7 January 2008 is summarised in Kot v. Russia (no. 20887/03, § 17, 18 January 2007).
• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 4629/07

  BELOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 7873/09

  SHEYMAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.10.2014 - 25965/03

  KOKSHAROVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.05.2013 - 15037/05

  SAKHAROVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 7182/03

  DAVLETKHANOV AND OTHER "CHERNOBYL PENSIONERS" CASES v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.07.2009 - 756/05

  MARKOVTSI AND SELIVANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.01.2022 - 57211/13

  VYELYEV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 15058/08 (anhängig)

  KOZLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 6131/07

  KOROBEYNIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.05.2014 - 30212/06

  KUZMIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 38585/04

  SIZINTSEVA v. RUSSIA