Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 25964/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2005,58694
EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 25964/02 (https://dejure.org/2005,58694)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24.02.2005 - 25964/02 (https://dejure.org/2005,58694)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24. Februar 2005 - 25964/02 (https://dejure.org/2005,58694)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,58694) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    POZNAKHIRINA v. RUSSIA

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, 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 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Costs and expenses (Convention proceedings) - claim dismissed ...

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (53)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 25964/02
    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, was one which was 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, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

    Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 25964/02
    The Court further recalls that the domestic remedies must be "effective" in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that had already occurred (see Kudla v Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158, ECHR 2000-XI).
  • EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

    MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 25964/02
    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, was one which was 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, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

    RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 25964/02
    The Court reiterates that a "claim" can constitute a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see Burdov v. Russia, cited above, § 40, and Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, p. 84, § 59).
  • EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 27790/03

    KUDRINA v. RUSSIA

    Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III; and, more recently, Poznakhirina v. Russia, no. 25964/02, 24 February 2005; Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, 18 November 2004), the Court finds that by failing to comply with the judgment of 25 December 2002 in the applicant's favour the domestic authorities violated her right to a court and prevented her from receiving the money which she was entitled to receive.

    The Court finds that in the present case this principle applies as well, having regard to the violations found (cf. Poznakhirina v. Russia, no. 25964/02, § 33, 24 February 2005, and Sukhobokov, cited above, § 34).

  • EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 76676/01

    MALTSEVA v. RUSSIA

    Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III; and, more recently, Poznakhirina v. Russia, no. 25964/02, 24 February 2005; Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, 18 November 2004), the Court finds that by failing to comply with the judgment of 11 August 1999 in the applicant's favour the domestic authorities violated her right to a court and prevented her from receiving the money which she was entitled to receive.

    The Court finds that this principle applies as well in the present case, having regard to the violations found (see. Poznakhirina v. Russia, no. 25964/02, § 33, 24 February 2005).

  • EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 24277/03

    ZAKOMLISTOVA v. RUSSIA

    The Court has found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in many cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see, among other authorities, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III; and, more recently, Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, 24 February 2005, or Poznakhirina v. Russia, no. 25964/02, 24 February 2005).

    The Court finds that in the present case this principle applies as well, having regard to the violations found (see Poznakhirina v. Russia, no. 25964/02, § 33, 24 February 2005).

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht