Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOROTYAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 6+P1-1-1 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) ...

Wird zitiert von ... (25)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• OLG Hamburg, 18.01.2010 - 13 W 28/09

  Grundbucheintragung bei Zuerwerb von Wohnungseigentum: Nachverpfändung von …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2017 - 13122/11

  (latest information from the Government: 29/09/2016).
• VK Baden-Württemberg, 04.05.2011 - 1 VK 15/11

  Der verantwortliche Entscheidungsträger muss sich ermitteln lassen!

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2017 - 13122/11

  16/11/2009.
• EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 2191/03

  PRIDATCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2017 - 13122/11

  The Court considers that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to secure, by appropriate means, enforcement of the judgment in the applicant's favour (see Pridatchenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 2191/03 and 3 others, § 68, 21 June 2007, and Salikova v. Russia, no. 25270/06, § 83, 15 July 2010).

• EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 25270/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2017 - 13122/11

  The Court considers that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to secure, by appropriate means, enforcement of the judgment in the applicant's favour (see Pridatchenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 2191/03 and 3 others, § 68, 21 June 2007, and Salikova v. Russia, no. 25270/06, § 83, 15 July 2010).
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 29920/05

  GERASIMOV v. RUSSIA and 14 other applications

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2017 - 13122/11

  In the wake of the pilot judgment in the case of Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, on various dates in December 2014 the applications were communicated to the Government for settlement or resolution (see Gerasimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29920/05 and 10 others, §§ 230-31 and point 13 of the operative part, 1 July 2014).
• EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 44387/04

  TKHYEGEPSO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2017 - 13122/11

  However, in the light of the adoption of the new domestic remedy the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the applicants' complaint under Article 13 in the present cases (see, mutatis mutandis, Tkhyegepso and Others v. Russia, nos. 44387/04 and 11 others, §§ 21-24, 25 October 2011; Pobudilina and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 29.04.2011 - 7142/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2017 - 13122/11

  7142/05 and 29 others, 29 March 2011; and several other cases).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 79757/12

  ANANKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  On the other hand, in the light of the adoption of the new domestic remedy, the Court, as in its previous decisions, considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the applicants' complaint under Article 13 in the present case (see, mutatis mutandis, Korotyayeva and Others, nos. 13122/11 and 2 others, § 40, 18 July 2017, and Tkhyegepso and Others v. Russia, nos. 44387/04 and 11 others, §§ 21-24, 25 October 2011).
• EGMR, 30.09.2021 - 11050/06

  MYASIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  However, in the light of the adoption of the new domestic remedy, having regard to the facts of the case and given all the material in its possession, the Court, as in its previous decisions, declares these complaints admissible but considers that it is not necessary to give a separate ruling on them in the present cases (see, for a similar approach, Korotyayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 13122/11 and 2 others, §§ 36-40, 27 June 2017; Kamneva and Others, cited above, and, mutatis mutandis, Tkhyegepso and Others v. Russia, no. 44387/04 and 11 others, §§ 21-24, 25 October 2011).
• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 43301/07

  LVIN v. RUSSIA

  However, in the light of the adoption of the new domestic remedy, the Court, as in its previous decisions, considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the applicant's complaint under Article 13 in the present case (see, mutatis mutandis, Korotyayeva and Others, nos. 13122/11 and 2 others, § 40, 18 July 2017, and Tkhyegepso and Others v. Russia, nos. 44387/04 and 11 others, §§ 21-24, 25 October 2011).

• EGMR, 30.11.2017 - 33064/07

  KAZACHKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  However, in the light of the adoption of the new domestic remedy, the Court, as in its previous decisions, considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the applicants' complaint under Article 13 in the present cases (see, for a similar approach, Korotyayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 13122/11 and 2 others, §§ 36-40, 27 June 2017; Kamneva and Others, cited above, and, mutatis mutandis, Tkhyegepso and Others v. Russia, no. 44387/04 and 11 others, §§ 21-24, 25 October 2011).
• EGMR, 12.10.2017 - 325/07

  ZAYNETDINOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  However, in the light of the adoption of the new domestic remedy, the Court, as in its previous decisions, considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the applicants' complaint under Article 13 in the present cases (see, for a similar approach, Korotyayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 13122/11 and 2 others, §§ 36-40, 27 June 2017; Kamneva and Others, cited above, and, mutatis mutandis, Tkhyegepso and Others v. Russia, no. 44387/04 and 11 others, §§ 21-24, 25 October 2011).
• EGMR, 14.04.2022 - 60699/11

  BESEDA v. RUSSIA

  That said, having regard to the facts of the case and in the light of all the material in its possession, as well as its findings under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Court considers that the complaint is admissible but that there is no need to give a separate ruling on it (see, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, with further references; and, for similar approach, Korotyayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 13122/11 and 2 others, §§ 36-40, 27 June 2017; Kamneva and Others, cited above, and, mutatis mutandis, Tkhyegepso and Others v. Russia, no. 44387/04 and 11 others, §§ 21-24, 25 October 2011).
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 22764/12

  VANYUKOVA v. RUSSIA

  However, in the light of the adoption of the new domestic remedy, the Court, as in its previous decisions, considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the applicant's complaint under Article 13 in the present case (see, mutatis mutandis, Korotyayeva and Others, nos. 13122/11 and 2 others, § 40, 18 July 2017; and Tkhyegepso and Others v. Russia, nos. 44387/04 and 11 others, §§ 21-24, 25 October 2011).
• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 35425/07

  [ENG]

  However, in the light of the adoption of the domestic remedy, the Court, as in its previous decisions, considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the applicant's complaint under Article 13 in the present case (see, see, for the Court's reasoning in many similar cases concerning both monetary awards and obligations in kind, Korotyayeva and Others, nos. 13122/11 and 2 others, § 40, 18 July 2017, and Tkhyegepso and Others v. Russia, nos. 44387/04 and 11 others, §§ 21-24, 25 October 2011).
• EGMR, 18.10.2018 - 27368/06

  SAFRONOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  However, in the light of the adoption of the new domestic remedy, the Court, as in its previous decisions, considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the applicants' complaint under Article 13 in the present cases (see, for a similar approach, Korotyayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 13122/11 and 2 others, §§ 36-40, 27 June 2017; Kamneva and Others, cited above, and, mutatis mutandis, Tkhyegepso and Others v. Russia, nos. 44387/04 and 11 others, §§ 21-24, 25 October 2011).
• EGMR, 14.12.2017 - 20435/09

  ARTYUSHKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  However, in the light of the adoption of the new domestic remedy, the Court, as in its previous decisions, considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the applicants' complaint under Article 13 in the present cases (see, for a similar approach, Korotyayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 13122/11 and 2 others, §§ 36-40, 27 June 2017; Kamneva and Others, cited above, and, mutatis mutandis, Tkhyegepso and Others v. Russia, no. 44387/04 and 11 others, §§ 21-24, 25 October 2011).
• EGMR, 30.11.2017 - 19388/07

  KURUSHINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.10.2017 - 66076/11

  MARKINY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.10.2017 - 35187/07

  AVDEYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.10.2017 - 34867/06

  MOROZOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.10.2017 - 522/06

  FEDORENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.10.2017 - 2349/06

  DUKHANIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.10.2017 - 48691/13

  BELONOZHKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.10.2017 - 33614/12

  BAYKINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 25321/08

  LOBODOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.09.2021 - 33681/15

  MEZAK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.07.2019 - 42932/11

  VAKHITOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 62276/16

  KADALA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 60708/13

  KONSTANTINOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.04.2018 - 7521/05

  KHAKIMOVY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.10.2017 - 8356/08

  OKOLELOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA