Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NAGOVITSYN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, 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 - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 07.07.2005 - 41302/02

  MALINOVSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 6859/02

  For provisions governing the right to "social tenancy" of State-owned housing see Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, §§ 20 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (extracts)).

  Further, the Court reiterates that, irrespective of whether that judgment required the provision of a flat in the applicant's ownership or under a social tenancy agreement, such a court award constituted the applicant's "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, §§ 42 et seq., ECHR 2005 (extracts)), and the delayed enforcement constituted an interference with the rights guaranteed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Therefore, the complaint about the non-enforcement of the second judgment falls within the scope of both Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

• EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 59498/00

  BURDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 6859/02

  It is not disputed that the second judgment concerned the applicant's "civil rights and obligations" and, therefore, Article 6 § 1 was applicable to the situation complained of - namely the failure to enforce the judgment within a reasonable time (see, as a classic authority, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 34, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 25.10.1989 - 10842/84

  ALLAN JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 6859/02

  The Court points out that, for Article 6 § 1 to be applicable under its "civil" head, there must be a "dispute" over a "private right" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law (on this particular point, see, for example, Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), judgment of 25 October 1989, Series A no. 163, p. 20, § 72).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 6859/02

  The Court reiterates that to constitute an "asset" or "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and, consequently, to attract the guarantees of this provision, a claim, for example, a judgment debt, should be sufficiently established to be enforceable (see, among other authorities, Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, §§ 35 et seq., ECHR 2004-IX; see also Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, p. 84, § 59).

• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 44116/13

  NIKAS v. GREECE

  The outcome of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences being insufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 44, 25 September 2018; Nagovitsyn v. Russia, no. 6859/02, §§ 39-41, 24 January 2008; and Astikos Oikodomikos Synetairismos Nea Konstantinoupolis v. Greece (dec.), no. 37806/02, 20 January 2005).