Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RADCHIKOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 65582/01
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 65582/01

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 65582/01

  The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 50178/99

  NIKITINE c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 65582/01

  Fourthly, the Government referred to the Court's ruling in the case of Nikitin v. Russia (no. 50178/99, ECHR 2004-VIII) that the principle of legal certainty was not absolute and argued that the reopening of the case at issue was justified by the need to correct a "fundamental defect in the previous proceedings which might affect the outcome of the case" within the meaning of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7.
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 65582/01

  The Court notes, in response to the Government's argument, that it has repeatedly granted claims for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage lodged by the next-of-kin on behalf of their deceased relatives (see, for example, Vocaturo v. Italy, judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 206-C, pp. 29 and 30, §§ 2 and 19, or Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, pp. 8 and 10, §§ 2 and 49) and that there is nothing in the circumstances of the present case or in the Government's submissions to justify a departure from that practice.

• EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 11436/06

  MITYANIN AND LEONOV v. RUSSIA

  Taking note of the Government's acknowledgment of the violation and the pace of the proceedings (in particular, various omissions between January 2004 and December 2006 (for the first applicant) and December 2003 and December 2006 (for the second applicant) resulting in the remittal of the case to the prosecutor and impeding the examination of the charge by the trial court), the Court concludes that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of each applicant (see also, mutatis mutandis, Radchikov v. Russia, no. 65582/01, § 50, 24 May 2007).
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 46926/09

  BAKRINA v. RUSSIA

  Previously the Court indicated that the fundamental defects in the proceedings justifying annulment of a final and binding judgment may include jurisdictional errors, serious breaches of court procedure, abuses of power, manifest errors in the application of substantive law or any other weighty reasons stemming from the interests of justice (see Radchikov v. Russia, no. 65582/01, § 48, 24 May 2007).
• EGMR - 63354/16 (anhängig)

  PEVZNER (PEVSNER) v. RUSSIA

  L'arrêt du présidium de la Cour suprême de Russie du 28 avril 2016, par lequel la décision du 24 juin 2014 a été cassée, a-t-il porté atteinte au principe de sécurité juridique (Brumarescu c. Roumanie [GC], no 28342/95, § 62, CEDH 1999-VII, et Radchikov c. Russie, no 65582/01, §§ 45-53, 24 mai 2007) ? Les requérants, peuvent-ils se prétendre victimes de cette violation alléguée ?.
• EGMR, 05.04.2016 - 63833/09

  GRUZDA v. RUSSIA

  Previously the Court indicated that the fundamental defects in the proceedings justifying annulment of a final and binding judgment may include jurisdictional errors, serious breaches of court procedure, abuses of power, manifest errors in the application of substantive law or any other weighty reasons stemming from the interests of justice (see Radchikov v. Russia, no. 65582/01, § 48, 24 May 2007).