Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SIDORENKO v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99

  RIABYKH c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 3519/05

  A departure from that principle is justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see, mutatis mutandis, Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-X; and Pravednaya v. Russia, no. 69529/01, § 25, 18 November 2004).
• EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 23405/03

  REYNBAKH v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 3519/05

  Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III; and, more recently, Reynbakh v. Russia, no. 23405/03, 29 September 2005, Denisov v. Russia, no. 21823/03, 25 January 2007), the Court finds that by failing for a substantial period to comply with the judgment in the applicant's favour, the domestic authorities violated his right to a court and prevented him from receiving the money he was entitled to receive.
• EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 69529/01

  PRAVEDNAYA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 3519/05

  A departure from that principle is justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see, mutatis mutandis, Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-X; and Pravednaya v. Russia, no. 69529/01, § 25, 18 November 2004).
• EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 21823/03

  DENISOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 3519/05

  Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III; and, more recently, Reynbakh v. Russia, no. 23405/03, 29 September 2005, Denisov v. Russia, no. 21823/03, 25 January 2007), the Court finds that by failing for a substantial period to comply with the judgment in the applicant's favour, the domestic authorities violated his right to a court and prevented him from receiving the money he was entitled to receive.

• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 24349/05

  POGOSYAN v. RUSSIA

  The Court has found a violation of an applicant's "right to a court" guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in many cases in which a judgment that had become final and binding was subsequently quashed by a higher court with the view of carrying out a fresh examination (see Dovguchits v. Russia, no. 2999/03, §§ 26-31, 7 June 2007; Kudrina v. Russia, no. 27790/03, §§ 15-20, 21 June 2007; Sidorenko v. Russia, no. 3519/05, §§ 12-19, 26 July 2007; and Kot, cited above, §§ 23-30).