Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GORFUNKEL v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil 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) ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Gorfunkel v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 2999/03

  DOVGUCHITS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2013 - 42974/07

  The quashing of this judgment in breach of the principle of legal certainty frustrated the applicant's reliance on a binding judicial decision and deprived him of an opportunity to receive a judicial award he had legitimately expected to receive (see Dovguchits v. Russia, no. 2999/03, § 35, 7 June 2007).
• EGMR, 07.07.2005 - 41302/02

  MALINOVSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2013 - 42974/07

  The judgment was thus specific enough to create an asset within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Vasilopoulou v. Greece, no. 47541/99, § 22, 21 March 2002, and Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, § 43, ECHR 2005-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 41486/04

  SELECKIS c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2013 - 42974/07

  It will, however, depend on whether the unilateral declaration offers a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine; see also Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003-VI; Seleckis v. Latvia (dec.), no. 41486/04, § 21, 2 March 2010; and the case-law cited therein).
• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 13151/04

  PROTSENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2013 - 42974/07

  A departure from that principle is justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-VII, and Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, §§ 51-52, ECHR 2003-IX), such as the need to correct a fundamental error (see Protsenko v. Russia, no. 13151/04, §§ 31-33, 31 July 2008).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99

  RIABYKH c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2013 - 42974/07

  A departure from that principle is justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-VII, and Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, §§ 51-52, ECHR 2003-IX), such as the need to correct a fundamental error (see Protsenko v. Russia, no. 13151/04, §§ 31-33, 31 July 2008).

• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 7873/09

  SHEYMAN v. RUSSIA

  The Court cannot therefore accept that the compensation offered by the Government in respect of pecuniary damage constitutes adequate and sufficient redress for the violations of the second applicant's rights under the Convention (see Gorfunkel v. Russia, no. 42974/07, §§ 15-29, 19 September 2013).
• EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 5941/06

  MISHURA AND GAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  The quashing of these judgments in breach of the principle of legal certainty frustrated the applicants" reliance on the binding judicial decisions and deprived them of the opportunity to receive judicial awards they had legitimately expected to receive (see Gorfunkel v. Russia, no. 42974/07, § 36, 19 September 2013).
• EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 18967/07

  DAVYDOV v. RUSSIA

  The quashing of this judgment in breach of the principle of legal certainty frustrated the applicant's reliance on the binding judicial decision and deprived him of the opportunity to receive a judicial award he had legitimately expected to receive (see Gorfunkel v. Russia, no. 42974/07, § 36, 19 September 2013).