Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 11931/03   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2005,50279
EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 11931/03 (https://dejure.org/2005,50279)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30.06.2005 - 11931/03 (https://dejure.org/2005,50279)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30. Juni 2005 - 11931/03 (https://dejure.org/2005,50279)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,50279) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    TETERINY v. RUSSIA

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 34 MRK
    Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 Partly inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (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 ... (55)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

    Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 11931/03
    It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

    Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 11931/03
    The Court further emphasises that the domestic remedies must be "effective" in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that had already occurred (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158, ECHR-XI).
  • EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 36677/97

    S.A. DANGEVILLE c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 11931/03
    However, pecuniary assets, such as debts, by virtue of which the applicant can claim to have at least a "legitimate expectation" of obtaining effective enjoyment of a particular pecuniary asset may also fall within the notion of "possessions" contained in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 23, § 51; Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, § 31, and, mutatis mutandis, S.A. Dangeville v. France, no. 36677/97, §§ 44-48, ECHR 2002-III).
     
  • EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

    MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 11931/03
    It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
  • EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

    PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 11931/03
    However, pecuniary assets, such as debts, by virtue of which the applicant can claim to have at least a "legitimate expectation" of obtaining effective enjoyment of a particular pecuniary asset may also fall within the notion of "possessions" contained in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 23, § 51; Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, § 31, and, mutatis mutandis, S.A. Dangeville v. France, no. 36677/97, §§ 44-48, ECHR 2002-III).
  • EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 17849/91

    PRESSOS COMPANIA NAVIERA S.A. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 11931/03
    However, pecuniary assets, such as debts, by virtue of which the applicant can claim to have at least a "legitimate expectation" of obtaining effective enjoyment of a particular pecuniary asset may also fall within the notion of "possessions" contained in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, p. 23, § 51; Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332, p. 21, § 31, and, mutatis mutandis, S.A. Dangeville v. France, no. 36677/97, §§ 44-48, ECHR 2002-III).
  • EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

    RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 11931/03
    In particular, the Court has consistently held that a "claim" - even to a particular social benefit - 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, and Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, p. 84, § 59).
  • EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 36391/02

    Wirksamkeitsverpflichtete Konventionsauslegung; Recht auf konkreten und wirksamen …

    The Court's assessment 72. The Court reiterates that the most appropriate form of redress for a violation of Article 6 § 1 would be to ensure that the applicant, as far as possible, is put in the position in which he would have been had this provision not been disregarded (see Teteriny v. Russia, no. 11931/03, § 56, 30 June 2005; Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 41183/02, § 53, ECHR 2006-..., and Mehmet and Suna Yigit v. Turkey, no. 52658/99, § 47, 17 July 2007).
  • EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 14667/05

    ZOLOTAREVA ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

    Partant, la Cour estime que les griefs de Mmes Tatyana Suvorova et Natalya Suvorova sont incompatibles ratione personae avec la Convention et ses Protocoles au sens de l'article 35 § 3, et qu'ils doivent être rejetés en application de l'article 35 § 4 de la Convention, (voir Tétériny c. Russie, no 11931/03, § 27-30, 30 juin 2005).

    La Cour rappelle que l'impossibilité pour un créancier de faire exécuter dans un délai raisonnable la décision rendue en sa faveur constitue une violation dans son chef du droit à un tribunal consacré par l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention, ainsi que du droit à la libre jouissance des biens garanti par l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 (voir Bourdov c. Russie, no 59498/00, § 34, CEDH 2002-III; Teteriny c. Russie, no 11931/03, 30 juin 2005; Kotsar c. Russie, no 25971/03, 29 janvier 2009).

  • EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 9253/06

    MIZYUK v. RUSSIA

    The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, § 35 et seq., ECHR 2005; Teteriny v. Russia, no. 11931/03, § 41 et seq., 9 June 2005; Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 19 et seq., 13 January 2005; Burdov, cited above, § 34 et seq., ECHR 2002-III).

    As regards the non-pecuniary damage, the applicant should be granted the same amount as the applicants in the cases of Teteriny v. Russia (no. 11931/03, 30 June 2005) and Shpakovskiy v. Russia (no. 41307/02, 7 July 2005).

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