Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOLTSOV 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 ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• 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 - 41304/02

  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, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 41304/02

  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 - 41304/02

  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, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 41304/02

  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, 04.12.2008 - 26759/03

  MOZHAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  The Court had already found, in a similar context, that after a competent State agency was served with a judgment, the recourse by the applicant to another State agency should not in principle have been necessary to secure its enforcement (see, mutatis mutandis, Koltsov v. Russia, no. 41304/02, § 16, 24 February 2005).

  As regards the Government's argument that the delay of enforcement was to a certain extent justified by the applicant's failure to submit the writ of execution to the respondent authority until March 2003, 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).

• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 42267/15

  PALIY v. RUSSIA

  It has been the Court's constant position that a person who has obtained a judgment against the State may not be expected to bring separate enforcement proceedings (see, among many other authorities, Koltsov v. Russia, no. 41304/02, § 16, 24 February 2005, with further references), and that the burden to ensure compliance with a judgment against the State lies primarily with the State authorities starting from the date on which the judgment becomes binding and enforceable (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 69, ECHR 2009).
• 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, 07.02.2008 - 7412/02

  CHERKASHIN 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, among other authorities, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III and, more recently, Koltsov v. Russia, no. 41304/02, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 21779/04

  TYTAR 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, among other authorities, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III and, more recently, Koltsov v. Russia, no. 41304/02, 24 February 2005).