Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 26.03.2009 - 38103/04 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,44834) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
NIKOLENKO v. RUSSIA
(englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2009 - 38103/04
The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for a prolonged non-enforcement of a binding judgment (see, mutatis mutandis, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI). - EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 59498/00
BURDOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2009 - 38103/04
The Court reiterates that an unreasonably long delay in the enforcement of a binding judgment may breach the Convention (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III). - EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99
RIABYKH c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2009 - 38103/04
They may be disturbed only to correct fundamental defects (see Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 51-52, ECHR 2003-IX).
- EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 22000/03
RAYLYAN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2009 - 38103/04
To decide if the delay was reasonable, the Court will look at how complex the enforcement proceedings were, how the applicant and the authorities behaved, and what the nature of the award was (see Raylyan v. Russia, no. 22000/03, § 31, 15 February 2007). - EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 13151/04
PROTSENKO v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2009 - 38103/04
To answer this complaint the Court will hence have to determine if the grounds for the quashing of the applicant's judgment fell within this exception (see Protsenko v. Russia, no. 13151/04, § 29, 31 July 2008). - EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2009 - 38103/04
With respect to the Court's finding that the prolonged non-enforcement did not in itself amount to a violation (see § 29 above), it should be noted that it suffices for Article 13 to be applicable that the applicant's claim that Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been violated, was arguable (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 54, Series A no. 131).