Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 43726/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2006,65018
EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 43726/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,65018)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27.07.2006 - 43726/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,65018)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27. Juli 2006 - 43726/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,65018)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,65018) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KANAYEV v. RUSSIA

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation of P1-1 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (englisch)

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

  • EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

    RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 43726/02
    As regards the applicant's complaint under Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention, 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; Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, p. 84, § 59).

    Finally, as regards applicability of Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention, the Court reiterated 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; Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, p. 84, § 59).

  • EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

    VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

    By way of further example, in Kanayev v. Russia (no. 43726/02, § 18, 27 July 2006), where the applicant was an active officer of the Russian navy, a third-rank captain, and thus in that capacity "wielded a portion of the State's sovereign power", Article 6 § 1 was held not to apply, even though the dispute related to non-enforcement of a court judgment in his favour which related to disputed travel expenses.
  • EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 2999/03

    DOVGUCHITS v. RUSSIA

    The Government, relying on the Court's judgments in the cases of Pellegrin v. France ([GC], no. 28541/95, ECHR 1999-VIII) and Kanayev v. Russia (no. 43726/02, 27 July 2006), argued that the applicant's complaint under Article 6 of the Convention was incompatible ratione materiae because the applicant had been a military officer and the judgment award had concerned wage arrears for his military service.
  • EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 23657/03

    MICLICI c. ROUMANIE

    Dans la mesure où elle a constaté qu'en l'espèce, la non-exécution intégrale du jugement du 15 décembre 2000 a portée atteinte au droit du requérant de voir exécuter une décision définitive rendue en sa faveur, la Cour estime également que l'impossibilité pour le requérant d'obtenir l'exécution complète de ce jugement s'analyse en une ingérence dans son droit au respect de ses biens, qui relève de la première phrase du premier alinéa de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1. Ne se fondant sur aucune justification valable, cette ingérence est arbitraire et emporte en l'espèce violation du principe de légalité (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Burdov c. Russie, no 59498/00, § 40, CEDH 2002-III, Kanayev c. Russie, no 43726/02, §§ 26-29, 27 juillet 2006, et Mykhaylenky et autres c. Ukraine, nos 35091/02, 35196/02, 35201/02, 35204/02, 35945/02, 35949/02, 35953/02, 36800/02, 38296/02 et 42814/02, §§ 60-64, CEDH 2004-XII).
  • EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 19136/04

    KALINICHENKO v. RUSSIA

    The Government, relying on the Court's judgments in the cases of Pellegrin v. France ([GC], no. 28541/95, ECHR 1999-VIII) and Kanayev v. Russia (no. 43726/02, 27 July 2006), argued that the applicant's complaint under Article 6 of the Convention was incompatible ratione materiae because the applicant had been a military officer at the material time and the judgment award had concerned allowances for his military service.
  • EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 2191/03

    PRIDATCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Until recently, employment disputes between the State and its military personnel were not, as a rule, regarded as "civil" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and thus fell outside of the Court's competence ratione materiae (see Pellegrin v. France [GC], no. 28541/95, §§ 65-67, ECHR 1999-VIII; see also Kanayev v. Russia, no. 43726/02, § 16, 27 July 2006).
  • EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 15242/04

    KUZMINA v. RUSSIA

    The Government, relying on the Court's judgments in the cases of Pellegrin v. France ([GC], no. 28541/95, ECHR 1999-VIII) and Kanayev v. Russia (no. 43726/02, 27 July 2006), argued that the applicant's complaint under Article 6 of the Convention was incompatible ratione materiae because the applicant was a military officer and the judgment award had concerned allowances for her military service.
  • EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 3244/04

    DEMENTYEV v. RUSSIA

    The Government, relying on the Court's judgments in the cases of Pellegrin v. France ([GC], no. 28541/95, ECHR 1999-VIII) and Kanayev v. Russia (no. 43726/02, 27 July 2006), argued that the applicant's complaint under Article 6 of the Convention was incompatible ratione materiae because the applicant had been a military officer and the judgment award had concerned allowances for his military service.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht