Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  UKRAINE-TYUMEN v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Pecuniary damage - reserved (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 22.11.2007 - 22603/02
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 22603/02

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2007 - 22603/02

  The Court reiterates that an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions must strike a "fair balance" between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights (see, among other authorities, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 26, § 69).
• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 53984/00

  RADIO FRANCE ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2007 - 22603/02

  The term "governmental organisation", as opposed to "non-governmental organisation", includes legal entities which participate in the exercise of governmental powers or run a public service under Government control (see Radio France and Others v. France (dec.), no. 53984/00, ECHR 2003-X).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99

  RIABYKH c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2007 - 22603/02

  The Court has already found in similar cases before it that the supervisory review of final and binding judgments, which was not directly accessible to parties, nor subject to any time-limit, nor justified by substantial and compelling circumstances, was not compatible with the principle of legal certainty that is one of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for instance, Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52-58, ECHR 2003-IX, Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, no. 48553/99, § 77, ECHR 2002-VII, and Agrotehservis v. Ukraine, no. 62608/00, §§ 42-43, 5 July 2005).
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

  PRESSOS COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2007 - 22603/02

  In particular, there must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised by any measure depriving a person of his possessions (see Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 23, § 38).
• EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 46129/99

  ZVOLSKÝ AND ZVOLSKÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2007 - 22603/02

  Nevertheless, the Court cannot fail to exercise its power of review and must determine whether the requisite balance was maintained in a manner consonant with the applicant's right to "the peaceful enjoyment of [its] possessions", within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Zvolský and Zvolská v. the Czech Republic, no. 46129/99, § 69, ECHR 2002-IX).

• EGMR, 30.11.2023 - 27128/11

  SKVYRASILRYBGOSP, VAT v. UKRAINE

  The Court's above finding that the extension of the appeal time-limit was in violation of Article 6 § 1, which preceded the quashing at issue, does not mean that the subsequent examination of the merits of the deputy prosecutor's appeal was deficient or unlawful (see, mutatis mutandis, Ukraine-Tyumen v. Ukraine, no. 22603/02, § 52, 22 November 2007, and Industrial Financial Consortium Investment Metallurgical Union v. Ukraine, no. 10640/05, § 198, 26 June 2018).
• EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 10515/18

  TMMOB MIMARLAR ODASI c. TURQUIE

  Des entités de droit public n'exerçant pas de prérogatives gouvernementales (Les saints monastères c. Grèce, 9 décembre 1994, § 49, série A no 301-A ; Radio France et autres c. France, décision précitée, §§ 24-26 ; Österreichischer Rundfunk c. Autriche, no 35841/02, 7 décembre 2006) ou des entreprises publiques jouissant d'une indépendance institutionnelle et opérationnelle suffisante à l'égard de l'État (Compagnie de navigation de la République islamique d'Iran c. Turquie, no 40998/98, §§ 80-81, CEDH 2007-V, Ukraine-Tioumen c. Ukraine, no 22603/02, §§ 25-28, 22 novembre 2007, Unédic c. France, no 20153/04, §§ 48-59, 18 décembre 2008, et, a contrario, Zastava It Turs c. Serbie (déc.), no 24922/12, 9 avril 2013, et State Holding Company Luganksvugillya c. Ukraine (déc.), no 23938/05, 27 janvier 2009) peuvent être considérées comme des « organisations non gouvernementales'au sens de l'article 34 de la Convention.