Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VASILYEV v. UKRAINE

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

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

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 11370/02

  Consequently, the proceedings did not relate to an "existing possession" of the applicant (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, § 48).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99

  RIABYKH c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 11370/02

  In the judgment of 24 July 2003 in the case of Ryabykh v. Russia (no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IX) the Court stated that:.
• EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 41984/98

  SVETLANA NAUMENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 11370/02

  The parts of the Code of Civil Procedure (as in force at the material time) relating to the supervisory review and of the Law on the Introduction of Changes to the Code of Civil Procedure of 21 June 2001 are set out in the judgment of 9 November 2004 in the case of Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine (no. 41984/98, §§ 65- 66).
• EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 21287/02

  PRYSTAVSKA contre l'UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 11370/02

  The subsequent new cassation proceedings before the Supreme Court cannot be taken into account as they were extraordinary review proceedings (see Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002) and did not, in the event, determine civil rights or obligations.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 62608/00

  AGROTEHSERVIS ET 7 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE L'UKRAINE

  Vasilyev, Application No. 11370/02, judgment of 21/06/2007, final on 24/09/2007,.

  11370/02.

• EGMR, 16.02.2017 - 74609/10

  BAYRAM BAYRAMOV v. AZERBAIJAN and 10 other applications

  The Court reiterates that where an applicant is entitled to be served automatically with a copy of the final domestic decision, the object and purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention are best served by counting the six-month period as running from the date of service of the copy of the written decision, irrespective of whether that decision was previously delivered orally (see Worm v. Austria, 29 August 1997, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-V; Venkadajalasarma v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 58510/11, 9 July 2002; Groshev v. Russia, no. 69889/01, § 22, 20 October 2005; and Vasilyev v. Ukraine, no. 11370/02, §§ 48-49, 21 June 2007).
• EGMR, 28.09.2017 - 69180/11

  HAJIBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN and 3 other applications

  The Court reiterates that where an applicant is entitled to be served automatically with a copy of the final domestic decision, the object and purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention are best served by counting the six-month period as running from the date of service of the copy of the written decision, irrespective of whether that decision was previously delivered orally (see Worm v. Austria, 29 August 1997, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-V; Venkadajalasarma v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 58510/00, 9 July 2002; Groshev v. Russia, no. 69889/01, § 22, 20 October 2005; and Vasilyev v. Ukraine, no. 11370/02, §§ 48-49, 21 June 2007).
• EGMR, 16.02.2017 - 24508/11

  MAHAMMAD MAJIDLI v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court reiterates that where an applicant is entitled to be served automatically with a copy of the final domestic decision, the object and purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention are best served by counting the six-month period as running from the date of service of the copy of the written decision, irrespective of whether that decision was previously delivered orally (see Worm v. Austria, 29 August 1997, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-V; Venkadajalasarma v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 58510/11, 9 July 2002; Groshev v. Russia, no. 69889/01, § 22, 20 October 2005; and Vasilyev v. Ukraine, no. 11370/02, §§ 48-49, 21 June 2007).