Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TETSEN v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  Öffentlicher Dienst und civil rights

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2008 - 11589/04

  However, in its recent judgment in the case of Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland ([GC], no. 63235/00, 19 April 2007), the Court found that the functional criterion, adopted in the Pellegrin judgment, did not simplify the analysis of the applicability of Article 6 in proceedings to which a civil servant was a party or brought about a greater degree of certainty in this area as intended (§ 55).
• EGMR, 08.12.1999 - 28541/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2008 - 11589/04

  The Government, relying on the Court's judgment in the case of Pellegrin v. France ([GC], no. 28541/95, ECHR 1999-VIII), argued that the applicant's complaint under Article 6 of the Convention was inadmissible ratione materiae because the applicant was a military officer and the judgment award had concerned wage arrears for his military service.
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 25964/02

  POZNAKHIRINA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2008 - 11589/04

  Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III; and, more recently, Poznakhirina v. Russia, no. 25964/02, 24 February 2005; Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, 18 November 2004, and also the Dovguchits and Velskaya judgments, cited above), the Court finds that by failing to comply with the judgment of 25 August 2003 in the applicant's favour the domestic authorities violated his right to a court and prevented him from receiving the money which he legitimately expected to receive.

• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 2999/03

  DOVGUCHITS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2008 - 11589/04

  Accordingly, Article 6 is applicable (compare Dovguchits v. Russia, no. 2999/03, § 24, 7 June 2007) and the Government's objection must be dismissed.
• EGMR, 13.04.2006 - 75470/01

  SUKHOBOKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2008 - 11589/04

  As regards the eventual quashing of the judgment on account of newly discovered circumstances, the Court reiterates its constant approach that "the quashing of the judgment which did not respect the principle of legal certainty and the applicant's "right to a court", cannot be accepted as a reason to justify the non-enforcement of the judgment" (see Velskaya, cited above, §§ 19-21, and Sukhobokov v. Russia, no. 75470/01, § 26, 13 April 2006).
• EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 15021/02

  WASSERMAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2008 - 11589/04

  Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III; and, more recently, Poznakhirina v. Russia, no. 25964/02, 24 February 2005; Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, 18 November 2004, and also the Dovguchits and Velskaya judgments, cited above), the Court finds that by failing to comply with the judgment of 25 August 2003 in the applicant's favour the domestic authorities violated his right to a court and prevented him from receiving the money which he legitimately expected to receive.
• EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 69529/01

  PRAVEDNAYA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2008 - 11589/04

  The person applying for rescission [on account of newly discovered circumstances] should show that there was no opportunity to present the item of evidence at the final hearing and that the evidence is decisive" (see Pravednaya v. Russia, no. 69529/01, § 27, 18 November 2004).
• EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 21769/03

  VELSKAYA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2008 - 11589/04

  It follows that at least from September 2003 to 20 October 2005 the judgment of 25 August 2003 was enforceable and it was incumbent on the State to abide by its terms (compare Dovguchits, cited above, § 41, and Velskaya v. Russia, no. 21769/03, § 18, 5 October 2006).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.09.2016 - 58263/00

  TIMOFEYEV AND 234 OTHER CASES AGAINST THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

  11589/04.

  11589/04.

• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 25114/03

  KULKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court also recalls that it has already found violations of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions in certain cases concerning similar facts as those at issue in the present case (see, among others, Dovguchits cited above, §§ 40-44, and Tetsen v. Russia, no. 11589/04, § 22-23, 3 April 2008).
• EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 14805/02

  ZELENKEVICH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court notes that it has already considered the argument submitted by the Government and rejected it in previous similar cases (see Tetsen v. Russia, no. 11589/04, § 18, 3 April 2008, and Dovguchits v. Russia, no. 2999/03, § 19, 7 June 2007).

• EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 13979/03

  [ENG]

  With regard to application of Article 6, the Court recalls that it has already dismissed the Government's similar arguments in another case (see Tetsen v. Russia, no. 11589/04, § 18, 3 April 2008).
• EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 32845/02

  KOSTENKO c. RUSSIE

  La Cour a déjà été amenée à examiner cette exception dans d'autres affaires et l'a rejetée (Tetsen c. Russie, no 11589/04, § 18, 3 avril 2008, et Dovgouchits c. Russie, no 2999/03, § 19, 7 juin 2007).
• EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 25971/03

  KOTSAR c. RUSSIE

  En ce qui concerne l'exception d'irrecevabilité, la Cour a déjà été amenée à l'examiner dans d'autres affaires et l'a rejetée (Tetsen c. Russie, no 11589/04, § 18, 3 avril 2008 ; Dovgouchits c. Russie, no 2999/03, § 19, 7 juin 2007).
• EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 16048/06

  LOTOREVICH v. RUSSIA

  With regard to application of Article 6, the Court recalls that it has already dismissed the Government's similar arguments in another case (see Tetsen v. Russia, no. 11589/04, § 18, 3 April 2008).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 5730/03

  YELDASHEV v. RUSSIA

  With regard to the applicability of Article 6, the Court recalls that this Article does apply to the proceedings in question (see Tetsen v. Russia, no. 11589/04, §§ 16-18, 3 April 2008).
• EGMR, 26.03.2009 - 38103/04

  NIKOLENKO v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that Article 6 does apply to cases similar to the case at hand (see Tetsen v. Russia, no. 11589/04, § 18, 3 April 2008).
• EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 34672/03

  LEVISHCHEV v. RUSSIA

  With regard to the applicability of Article 6, the Court recalls that it has already dismissed the Government's similar arguments in another case (see Tetsen v. Russia, no. 11589/04, § 18, 3 April 2008).