Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BEZBORODOV v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2008 - 36765/03

  They submitted with reference to the recent Vilho Eskelinen case (see Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 62, 19 April 2007) that the civil head of Article 6 did not apply to the litigation in the instant case.

  With regard to the applicability of Article 6, the Court reiterates that this Article does not apply to cases where domestic law expressly excludes access to a court for the category of staff in question, and where this exclusion is justified by the State's objective interest (see Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 62, ECHR 2007-...) In the case at hand, however, the applicant did have access to a court under domestic law.

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2008 - 36765/03

  As regards the argument about non-exhaustion of the domestic remedies, the Court reiterates that it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one, available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible and capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 59498/00

  BURDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2008 - 36765/03

  However, that delay may not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected under Article 6 § 1 (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 35, ECHR 2002-III).

 
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2008 - 36765/03

  As regards the argument about non-exhaustion of the domestic remedies, the Court reiterates that it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one, available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible and capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 23405/03

  REYNBAKH v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2008 - 36765/03

  Finally, the Court reiterates that it is incumbent on the State to organise its legal system in such a way that ensures co-ordination between various enforcement agencies and secures honouring of the State's judgment debts in good time (see, insofar as relevant, Reynbakh v. Russia, no. 23405/03, § 23, 29 September 2005).
• EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 18557/06

  LYKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2008 - 36765/03

  The Court further recalls that the applicant should not be prevented from benefiting from the success of the litigation on the ground of alleged difficulties experienced by the State enforcement services and the complexity of the budgetary arrangement (see Lykov v. Russia, no. 18557/06, § 20, 12 July 2007).
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 2999/03

  DOVGUCHITS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2008 - 36765/03

  Accordingly, Article 6 is applicable to the present case (compare with Dovguchits v. Russia, no. 2999/03, § 24, 7 June 2007).