Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 731/04 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,55881) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KRASEV v. RUSSIA
(englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (8)
- EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 59498/00
BURDOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 731/04
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, 27.05.2004 - 8415/02
METAXAS c. GRECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 731/04
However, a person who has obtained a judgment against the State may not be expected to bring separate enforcement proceedings (see Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, § 19, 27 May 2004). - EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 38305/02
GOROKHOV AND RUSYAYEV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 731/04
With regard to the judgment of 18 May 2001, the Court reiterates that in cases about non-enforcement the six-month time-limit begins on the date of enforcement (see Gorokhov and Rusyayev v. Russia, no. 38305/02, § 27, 17 March 2005).
- EGMR, 19.04.2005 - 9670/02
NAZARCHUK v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 731/04
With regard to the other three judgments, the Court finds that the six-month rule did not apply, because on the date of introduction these judgments were outstanding (see Nazarchuk v. Ukraine, no. 9670/02, § 20, 19 April 2005). - EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 22000/03
RAYLYAN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 731/04
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, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00
VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 731/04
With regard to the applicability of Article 6, the Court reiterates that this Article does not apply only to cases where domestic law expressly excludes access to a court for the category of staff in question, and where this exclusion is justified by the State's objective interest (see Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 62, ECHR 2007-...) In the case at hand, however, the applicant did have access to a court under domestic law. - EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 2999/03
DOVGUCHITS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 731/04
Accordingly, Article 6 is applicable (compare with Dovguchits v. Russia, no. 2999/03, § 24, 7 June 2007), and the Government's objection must be dismissed. - KAG Münster, 28.01.2010 - 26/09
Kostentragungspflicht des Dienstgebers für die Hinzuziehung eines …
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 731/04
26/09/2008.