Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NELYUBIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (24)Zitiert selbst (2)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 50178/99

  NIKITINE c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 14502/04

  The Court has to assess whether the power to conduct a supervisory review was exercised by the authorities so as to strike, to the maximum extent possible, a fair balance between the interests of the individual and the need to ensure the proper administration of justice (see, mutatis mutandis, Nikitin v. Russia, no. 50178/99, §§ 57 and 59, ECHR 2004-...).
• EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 63973/00

  ANDROSOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 14502/04

  The Court reiterates that the existence of a debt confirmed by a binding and enforceable judgment furnishes the judgment beneficiary with a "legitimate expectation" that the debt would be paid and constitutes the beneficiary's "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Quashing of such a judgment amounts to an interference with his or her right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (see, among other authorities, Brumarescu, cited above, § 74; and Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00, § 69, 6 October 2005).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.03.2017 - 52854/99

  RYABYKH AND 112 OTHER CASES AGAINST RUSSIA

  14502/04.

  14502/04.

• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 8549/06

  [ENG]

  A situation where the final judgments in the applicants' favour was called into question could have been avoided, had the military commissariat lodged an ordinary appeal within the statutory ten-day time-limit (see Borshchevskiy v. Russia, no. 14853/03, § 48, 21 September 2006, and Nelyubin v. Russia, no. 14502/04, § 27, 2 November 2006).
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 2999/03

  DOVGUCHITS v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that it has found a violation of an applicant's "right to a court" guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in many Russian cases in which a judicial decision that had become final and binding, was subsequently quashed by a higher court on an application by a State official or a party to the proceedings, especially when a particularly long period of time, as in the present case, lapsed from the date the judgment in the applicant's favour had become binding to the date the supervisory-review proceedings were instituted (see Roseltrans v. Russia, no. 60974/00, §§ 27-28, 21 July 2005; Volkova v. Russia, no. 48758/99, §§ 34-36, 5 April 2005; Ryabykh, cited above, §§ 51-56; Borshchevskiy v. Russia, no. 14853/03, §§ 46-48, 21 September 2006; and Nelyubin v. Russia, no. 14502/04, §§ 28-30, 2 November 2006).

• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 30672/03

  SOBELIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Constitutional Court referred in this respect to the case of Nelyubin v. Russia, decided by this Court (no. 14502/04, 2 November 2006).
• EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 679/11

  SOLOMUN v. CROATIA

  It is true that in the Bocvarska case the public prosecutor who had lodged the request for the protection of legality was not a party to the civil proceedings which had ended by a final judgment, whereas in the case at issue the State Attorney's Office was a party to the proceedings; however, the Court does not consider this to be of a crucial importance for its analysis (see, for example, Nelyubin v. Russia, no. 14502/04, § 27, 2 November 2006, and Sfinx-Impex S.A. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 28439/05, §§ 22-24, 25 September 2012).
• EGMR, 28.05.2014 - 2173/04

  [ENG]

  The Court reiterates that this distinction is not of crucial importance for its analysis (see Kot, cited above, § 28, and Nelyubin v. Russia, no. 14502/04, § 27, 2 November 2006).
• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 31799/08

  [ENG]

  A situation where the final judgments in the applicants' favour were called into question could have been avoided, had the respondent authority lodged an ordinary appeal within the statutory ten-day time-limit (see Borshchevskiy v. Russia, no. 14853/03, § 48, 21 September 2006, and Nelyubin v. Russia, no. 14502/04, § 27, 2 November 2006).
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 36495/02

  KURINNYY v. RUSSIA

  Thus, a situation where the final judgment in the applicant's favour was called into question could have been avoided (see, mutatis mutandis, Nelyubin v. Russia, no. 14502/04, §§ 28-29, 2 November 2006).
• EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 19134/05

  BOLYUKH v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that it has found a violation of an applicant's "right to a court" guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in many Russian cases in which a judicial decision that had become final and binding, was subsequently quashed by a higher court on an application by a State official or a party to the proceedings, especially when a particularly long period of time, as in the present case, lapsed from the date the judgment in the applicant's favour had become binding to the date the supervisory-review proceedings were instituted (see Ryabykh, cited above, §§ 51-58; Volkova v. Russia, no. 48758/99, §§ 34-37, 5 April 2005; Roseltrans v. Russia, no. 60974/00, §§ 27-28, 21 July 2005; Borshchevskiy v. Russia, no. 14853/03, §§ 46-50, 21 September 2006; and Nelyubin v. Russia, no. 14502/04, §§ 28-30, 2 November 2006).
• EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 25448/06

  ZVEZDIN v. RUSSIA

  Thus, a situation where the final judgment in the applicant's favour was called into question could have been avoided, had the Military Commission lodged an ordinary appeal within the statutory ten-day time-limit (see Borshchevskiy v. Russia, no. 14853/03, § 48, 21 September 2006, and Nelyubin v. Russia, no. 14502/04, § 27, 2 November 2006).
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 26338/06

  MURTAZIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.10.2017 - 40676/11

  SPIRIDONOVSKA AND POPOVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 32185/02

  KAYKHANIDI v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 19136/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 51380/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 17472/04

  BODROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.04.2008 - 45017/04

  NEKHOROSHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 3519/05

  SIDORENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 27790/03

  KUDRINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.11.2025 - 6045/14

  LASKU AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 3244/04

  DEMENTYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 934/03

  KOZEYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 2993/03

  AKALINSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.07.2008 - 26105/03

  MITREA v. ROMANIA