Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PETRUSHKO v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, 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 - financial award Costs and expenses - claim dismissed (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (28)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 36494/02

  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 - 36494/02

  The Court further observes 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 - 36494/02

  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 - 36494/02

  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, 15.01.2009 - 33509/04

  BURDOV v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  The Court reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant, such as the enforcement of a judgment after substantial delay, is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a "victim", unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, §§ 14-16, 24 February 2005, with further references).
• EGMR, 25.03.2008 - 11549/02

  FALIMONOV v. RUSSIA

  In any event, the Court reiterates that a person who has obtained an enforceable judgment against the State as a result of successful litigation cannot be required to resort to enforcement proceedings in order to have it executed (see Koltsov v. Russia, no. 41304/02, § 16, 24 February 2005; Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, § 18, 24 February 2005; and Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, § 19, 27 May 2004).

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see Reynbakh v. Russia, no. 23405/03, § 23 et seq., 29 September 2005; Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 19 et seq., 13 January 2005; Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, § 23 et seq., 24 February 2005; Gorokhov and Rusyayev v. Russia, no. 38305/02, § 30 et seq., 17 March 2005; Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, § 35 et seq., 18 November 2004; Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 34 et seq., ECHR 2002-III).

• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 24770/04

  USTALOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that a person who has obtained an enforceable judgment against the State as a result of successful litigation cannot be required to resort to enforcement proceedings in order to have it executed (see Koltsov v. Russia, no. 41304/02, § 16, 24 February 2005; Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, § 18, 24 February 2005; and Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, § 19, 27 May 2004).

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see Reynbakh v. Russia, no. 23405/03, § 23 et seq., 29 September 2005; Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 19 et seq., 13 January 2005; Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, § 23 et seq., 24 February 2005; Gorokhov and Rusyayev v. Russia, no. 38305/02, § 30 et seq., 17 March 2005; Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, § 35 et seq., 18 November 2004; Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 34 et seq., ECHR 2002-III).

 
• EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 4532/04

  ROMOKHOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see Akashev, cited above, § 21 et seq.; Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 19 et seq., 13 January 2005; Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, § 23 et seq., 24 February 2005, and Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 34 et seq., ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 75025/01

  ALEKSENTSEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 19 et seq., 13 January 2005; Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, § 23 et seq., 24 February 2005; Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, § 35 et seq., 18 November 2004; Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 34 et seq., ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 7352/03

  BESHIRI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  In particular, as to the Government's argument relating to the applicants" failure to initiate enforcement proceedings, the Court reiterates that a person who has obtained an enforceable judgment against the State as a result of successful litigation cannot be required to resort to enforcement proceedings in order to have it executed (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 89, ECHR 2006; Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, § 19, 27 May 2004; Koltsov v. Russia, no. 41304/02, § 16, 24 February 2005; and Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, § 18, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 16152/03

  LAPIN 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).
• EGMR, 03.04.2008 - 34150/04

  POGULYAYEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see Reynbakh v. Russia, no. 23405/03, § 23 et seq., 29 September 2005; Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 19 et seq., 13 January 2005; Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, § 23 et seq., 24 February 2005; Gorokhov and Rusyayev v. Russia, no. 38305/02, § 30 et seq., 17 March 2005; Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, § 35 et seq., 18 November 2004; Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 34 et seq., ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 03.04.2008 - 12541/05

  IVAN NOVIKOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see Reynbakh v. Russia, no. 23405/03, § 23 et seq., 29 September 2005; Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 19 et seq., 13 January 2005; Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, § 23 et seq., 24 February 2005; Gorokhov and Rusyayev v. Russia, no. 38305/02, § 30 et seq., 17 March 2005; Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, § 35 et seq., 18 November 2004; Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 34 et seq., ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 3344/04

  MAYAMSIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see Reynbakh v. Russia, no. 23405/03, § 23 et seq., 29 September 2005; Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 19 et seq., 13 January 2005; Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, § 23 et seq., 24 February 2005; Gorokhov and Rusyayev v. Russia, no. 38305/02, § 30 et seq., 17 March 2005; Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, § 35 et seq., 18 November 2004; Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 34 et seq., ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 25.03.2008 - 13519/02

  GAYVORONSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.03.2008 - 24229/03

  BRAGA, TIMOFEYEV AND KIRYUSHKINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.03.2008 - 9769/04

  TRUNOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 34283/05

  OOO PKG 'SIB-YUKASS' v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 31296/02

  OSHER AND OSHER v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 966/03

  ALMAYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 7111/05

  PYLNOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 21198/05

  AYRAPETYAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.02.2006 - 3504/02

  BOGDANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 4877/06

  AKUGINOVA ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 10.04.2008 - 42383/02

  SHEVCHENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 24277/03

  ZAKOMLISTOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 13296/03

  ZVEREV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 21932/03

  BAKHAREV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 16108/06

  KOZYYAKOVA AND GUREYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 8011/02

  VASILYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 17030/04

  ZAKHAROVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 23795/02

  CHEBOTAREV v. RUSSIA