Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GRIGORYEV AND KAKAUROVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 13820/04

  The Court further observes 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 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 13820/04

  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, 07.05.2002 - 59498/00

  BURDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 13820/04

  The Court reiterates that it is not open to a State authority to cite the lack of funds or other resources as an excuse for not honouring a court award (see, mutatis mutandis, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 35, ECHR 2002-III).

• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 13820/04

  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, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 13820/04

  From the ratification date onwards, all of the State's alleged acts and omissions must conform to the Convention or its Protocols and subsequent facts fall within the Court's jurisdiction even where they are merely extensions of an already existing situation (see, for example, YaÄŸcı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, p. 16, § 40, and Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal, nos. 29813/96 and 30229/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 35091/02

  MIKHAÏLENKI ET AUTRES c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 13820/04

  35091/02, 35196/02, 35201/02, 35204/02, 35945/02, 35949/02, 35953/02, 36800/02, 38296/02 and 42814/02, §§ 41-46, ECHR 2004-XII; and Lisyanskiy v. Ukraine, no. 17899/02, §§ 17-20, 4 April 2006).
• EGMR, 13.01.2005 - 5124/03

  GIZZATOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 13820/04

  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, for example, Burdov, cited above, §§ 33-42; Gerasimova v. Russia, no. 24669/02, §§ 14-22, 13 October 2005; Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, 13 January 2005, §§ 18-29).
• EKMR, 08.09.1997 - 30229/96

  J. M.F. ET AUTRES contre le PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 13820/04

  From the ratification date onwards, all of the State's alleged acts and omissions must conform to the Convention or its Protocols and subsequent facts fall within the Court's jurisdiction even where they are merely extensions of an already existing situation (see, for example, YaÄŸcı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, p. 16, § 40, and Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal, nos. 29813/96 and 30229/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 05.12.2000 - 39615/98

  MOTIERE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 13820/04

  The applicants did not seek reimbursement of costs and expenses relating to the proceedings before the domestic courts or the Convention organs and this is not a matter which the Court has to examine of its own motion (see Motière v. France, no. 39615/98, § 26, 5 December 2000).
• EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 17899/02

  LISYANSKIY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 13820/04

  35091/02, 35196/02, 35201/02, 35204/02, 35945/02, 35949/02, 35953/02, 36800/02, 38296/02 and 42814/02, §§ 41-46, ECHR 2004-XII; and Lisyanskiy v. Ukraine, no. 17899/02, §§ 17-20, 4 April 2006).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 31761/04

  KHACHATRYAN v. ARMENIA

  It may, however, have regard to the facts prior to ratification inasmuch as they could be considered to have created a situation extending beyond that date or may be relevant for the understanding of facts occurring after that date (see Broniowski v. Poland (dec.) [GC], no. 31443/96, §§ 74-77, ECHR 2002-X; and Grigoryev and Kakaurova v. Russia, no. 13820/04, § 25, 12 April 2007).

  35091/02, 35196/02, 35201/02, 35204/02, 35945/02, 35949/02, 35953/02, 36800/02, 38296/02 and 42814/02, § 44, ECHR 2004-XII; Lisyanskiy v. Ukraine, no. 17899/02, § 20, 4 April 2006; Shlepkin v. Russia, no. 3046/03, § 24, 1 February 2007; Grigoryev and Kakaurova v. Russia, no. 13820/04, § 35, 12 April 2007; and R. Kacapor and Others v. Serbia, nos.

• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 2880/10

  SAMSONOV c. RUSSIE

  Bien que la Cour ait été amenée à plusieurs reprises à constater que le statut juridique de l'entreprise vis-à-vis du droit interne n'est pas décisif pour déterminer la responsabilité de l'État pour les actes de l'entreprise au regard de la Convention (voir, parmi d'autres, Yershova, précité, § 56 ; voir également, mutatis mutandis, Mikhaïlenki et autres, précité, § 45, Lisianski, précité, § 19, Cooperativa Agricola Slobozia-Hanesei, précité, §§ 18-19, Grigoryev et Kakaourova c. Russie, no 13820/04, § 35, 12 avril 2007, et R. Kačapor et autres, précité, § 98) (paragraphe 64 ci-dessous), elle se penchera sur les arguments avancés par le Gouvernement au sujet des différents aspects du droit national en ce qui concerne les entreprises unitaires.
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 1387/04

  YERSHOVA v. RUSSIA

  Indeed, on several occasions, the Court has held the State liable for companies' debts regardless of their formal classification under domestic law (see, among others, mutatis mutandis, Mykhaylenky and Others, cited above, § 45; Lisyanskiy v. Ukraine, no. 17899/02, § 19, 4 April 2006; Cooperativa Agricola Slobozia-Hanesei v. Moldova, no. 39745/02, §§ 18-19, 3 April 2007; Grigoryev and Kakaurova v. Russia, no. 13820/04, § 35, 12 April 2007; and R. Kaÿapor and Others v. Serbia, nos.

• EGMR, 30.07.2015 - 39678/03

  [ENG]

  The Court notes that the application was introduced in 2003, 1ong before the Court dealt with either the issue of the State's responsibility for the debts of unitary enterprises and the status of such companies under the domestic law (see, for the Court's first judgment on the matter, Shlepkin v. Russia, no. 3046/03, 1 February 2007), or the Government's non-exhaustion objections concerning various complaints against the bailiffs in the context of the progress of the enforcement proceedings (see, for instance, Shlepkin, cited above, § 18; Grigoryev and Kakaurova v. Russia, no. 13820/04, § 29, 12 April 2007; and Yershova, cited above, § 65).
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 38503/08

  NORMA S.R.L. c. MOLDOVA

  Par rapport à cette dernière, la Cour note que le Gouvernement n'a pas démontré qu'elle jouissait d'une indépendance institutionnelle et opérationnelle suffisante vis-à-vis de l'Etat, propriétaire de celle-ci, pour que le dernier puisse être exonéré de sa responsabilité au regard de la Convention pour ses faits et omissions (voir Cooperativa Agricola Slobozia-Hanesei c. Moldavie, no 39745/02, § 19, 3 avril 2007 ; Grigoryev et Kakaurova c. Russie, no 13820/04, § 35, 12 avril 2007 ; Moldavanu c. Roumanie, no 13386/02, § 34, 29 juillet 2008).
• EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 35254/04

  [ENG]

  The period after 5 May 1998 therefore falls within the scope of the Court's jurisdiction ratione temporis (see Grigoryev and Kakaurova v. Russia, no. 13820/04, § 26, 12 April 2007, and Finkov v. Russia, no. 27440/03, § 69, 8 October 2009).
• EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 13979/03

  [ENG]

  With regard to the compatibility ratione temporis, the Court notes that on the date of introduction of the application the judgment of 21 January 1998 remained unenforced, and the Court is hence competent to examine this complaint (see Grigoryev and Kakaurova v. Russia, no. 13820/04, § 26, 12 April 2007).
• EGMR, 29.07.2008 - 13386/02

  MOLDOVEANU c. ROUMANIE

  Tout en notant que la CNM Navrom était une personne morale distincte, la Cour estime, au vu de ce qui précède, que le Gouvernement n'a pas démontré que celle-ci jouissait d'une indépendance institutionnelle et opérationnelle suffisante vis-à-vis des autorités pour que l'Etat puisse être exonéré de sa responsabilité au regard de la Convention pour ses actions et omissions (voir, mutatis mutandis, Cooperativa Agricola Slobozia-Hanesei c. Moldova, no 39745/02, § 19, 3 avril 2007, Grigoryev et Kakaurova c. Russie, no 13820/04, § 35, 12 avril 2007, et Vostokmash Avanta c. Ukraine, no 8878/03, § 23, 20 septembre 2007).
• EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 27440/03

  FINKOV v. RUSSIA

  With regard to the compatibility ratione temporis, the Court notes that on the date of introduction of the complaint concerning non-enforcement (5 February 2001), the judgment of 18 November 1997 remained unenforced, and the Court is hence competent to examine this complaint (see Grigoryev and Kakaurova v. Russia, no. 13820/04, § 26, 12 April 2007).
• EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 24766/04

  SHAFRANOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court considers that the State has not shown that FGUP "Yeniseirechsvyaz" enjoyed such institutional and operational independence from the State that it would absolve the latter from responsibility under the Convention for its acts and omissions (see, for example, Grigoryev and Kakaurova v. Russia, no. 13820/04, §§ 35-36, 12 April 2007).
• EGMR, 18.09.2008 - 33548/04

  LYATSKAYA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 75894/01

  SEROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 19001/05

  RJ IMPORT ROGER JAEGER A.G. AND RJ IMPORT BUCURESTI S.A. v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 1690/05

  AURELIA POPA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 14.11.2008 - 42389/02

  JOUK c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 28965/02

  ALEKSANDROVA v. RUSSIA