Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×
Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 21.09.2006

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 10.03.2017 - 52854/99, 11227/05, 39897/02, 2993/03, 51380/07, 32991/05, 63973/00, 44142/05, 24130/04, 17472/04, 30671/03, 42234/04, 14853/03, 62866/00, 23795/02, 30714/03, 5964/02, 30686/03, 7182/03, 18967/07, 3244/04, 27101/04, 18451/04, 2999/03, 7319/05, 12157/06, 3   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2017,6535
EGMR, 10.03.2017 - 52854/99, 11227/05, 39897/02, 2993/03, 51380/07, 32991/05, 63973/00, 44142/05, 24130/04, 17472/04, 30671/03, 42234/04, 14853/03, 62866/00, 23795/02, 30714/03, 5964/02, 30686/03, 7182/03, 18967/07, 3244/04, 27101/04, 18451/04, 2999/03, 7319/05, 12157/06, 3 (https://dejure.org/2017,6535)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10.03.2017 - 52854/99, 11227/05, 39897/02, 2993/03, 51380/07, 32991/05, 63973/00, 44142/05, 24130/04, 17472/04, 30671/03, 42234/04, 14853/03, 62866/00, 23795/02, 30714/03, 5964/02, 30686/03, 7182/03, 18967/07, 3244/04, 27101/04, 18451/04, 2999/03, 7319/05, 12157/06, 3 (https://dejure.org/2017,6535)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10. März 2017 - 52854/99, 11227/05, 39897/02, 2993/03, 51380/07, 32991/05, 63973/00, 44142/05, 24130/04, 17472/04, 30671/03, 42234/04, 14853/03, 62866/00, 23795/02, 30714/03, 5964/02, 30686/03, 7182/03, 18967/07, 3244/04, 27101/04, 18451/04, 2999/03, 7319/05, 12157/06, 3 (https://dejure.org/2017,6535)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,6535) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    RYABYKH ET 112 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA RUSSIE

    Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    RYABYKH AND 112 OTHER CASES AGAINST RUSSIA

    Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

  • EGMR, 21.02.2002 - 52854/99
  • EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99
  • EGMR, 10.03.2017 - 52854/99, 11227/05, 39897/02, 2993/03, 51380/07, 32991/05, 63973/00, 44142/05, 24130/04, 17472/04, 30671/03, 42234/04, 14853/03, 62866/00, 23795/02, 30714/03, 5964/02, 30686/03, 7182/03, 18967/07, 3244/04, 27101/04, 18451/04, 2999/03, 7319/05, 12157/06, 3
 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (143)

  • VK Rheinland-Pfalz, 27.05.2005 - 15/05

    Nachprüfungsverfahren: Antragsbefugnis trotz fehlender Angebotsabgabe

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2017 - 52854/99
    15/05/2007.

    15/05/2007.

    15/05/2007.

    15/05/2007.

    15/05/2007.

    15/05/2007.

    15/05/2007.

    15/05/2006.

    15/05/2007.

    15/05/2007.

    15/05/2007.

    15/05/2007.

    15/05/2007.

    15/05/2007.

    15/05/2006.

    15/05/2007.

    15/05/2006.

  • EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 15/02

    DURUK ET YÜCEDAG c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2017 - 52854/99
    15/02/2006.

    15/02/2007.

    15/02/2007.

    15/02/2007.

    15/02/2007.

    15/02/2007.

    15/02/2007.

    15/02/2006.

    15/02/2007.

    15/02/2006.

    15/02/2006.

    15/02/2007.

    15/02/2006.

    15/02/2006.

  • KAG Freiburg, 04.04.2008 - 10/07

    Unterlassungsanspruch bezüglich der Anwendung einer Dienstvereinbarung über eine …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2017 - 52854/99
    10/07/2008.

    10/07/2008.

    10/07/2014.

    10/07/2014.

    10/07/2008.

    10/07/2008.

    10/07/2014.

  • EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 33636/09

    [ENG]

    Le Gouvernement distingue enfin les présentes espèces de l'affaire Riabykh c. Russie (no 52854/99, §§ 27-34, CEDH 2003-IX), indiquant que, en l'occurrence, les juridictions supérieures ont détecté des cas de mauvaise administration de la justice et ont réformé les jugements litigieux au motif que les tribunaux de première instance avaient fait preuve d'un excès de pouvoir en ce qu'ils avaient réexaminé des questions déjà tranchées par d'autres décisions judiciaires passées en force de chose jugée.
  • EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 60975/08

    SIEMASZKO c. POLOGNE

    Citant les affaires X. c. Allemagne ((déc.), no 8724/79, 6 mars 1980), Rudzinska c. Pologne ((déc.), no 45223/99, 7 septembre 1999), Gayduk c. Ukraine ((déc.), no 45526/99, 2 juillet 2002) ou Ryabykh c. Russie (no 52854/99, 24 juillet 2003), le Gouvernement fait observer que les États ne sont pas responsables pour des sommes déposées dans des banques privées et que l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 à la Convention ne leur impose aucune obligation de maintenir, par une indexation systématique, le pouvoir d'achat des sommes concernées.
  • EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 34938/04

    SUSLIN v. RUSSIA

    Such a solution would have been in line with its reasoning in other cases (see, for example, Lukyanchenko v. Ukraine, no. 17327/02, §§ 33-34, 15 May 2008; Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00, §§ 73-76, 6 October 2005).
  • EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 4351/02

    AMURARITEI c. ROUMANIE

    Or, dans ce cas, la remise en cause, dans le cadre de l'action en revendication, du jugement définitif et irrévocable du 25 octobre 1991 exécuté le 7 août 1995, ne saurait être justifiée sous l'angle de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (voir, mutatis mutandis, Riabykh c. Russie, no 52854/99, § 52, CEDH 2003-IX).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 52946/12

    SIMION c. ROUMANIE

    La Cour renvoie aux principes généraux établis en matière de sécurité juridique dans les affaires Brumărescu c. Roumanie ([GC], no 28342/95, §§ 61-62, CEDH 1999-VII) et Riabykh c. Russie (no 52854/99, § 52, CEDH 2003-IX) et résumés, par exemple, dans l'affaire Protsenko c. Russie (no 13151/04, §§ 25-28, 31 juillet 2008).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 14853/03   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2006,65100
EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 14853/03 (https://dejure.org/2006,65100)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21.09.2006 - 14853/03 (https://dejure.org/2006,65100)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21. September 2006 - 14853/03 (https://dejure.org/2006,65100)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,65100) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    BORSHCHEVSKIY 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 and P1-1 (quashing of final judgment) Violation of Art. 6-1 and P1-1 (enforcement delays) Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ...

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (17)Zitiert selbst (6)

  • EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99

    RIABYKH c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 14853/03
    The Government lay special emphasis on the fact that, by contrast with the Ryabykh case (see Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 54, ECHR 2003-IX), the supervisory-review proceedings had been initiated by a party to the case, Department no. 25 of the Pension Fund for Moscow and the Moscow Region (the former "Stupino Pensions Department").

    Departures from that principle are justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see, mutatis mutandis, Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-X; and Pravednaya v. Russia, no. 69529/01, § 25, 18 November 2004).

  • EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 25964/02

    POZNAKHIRINA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 14853/03
    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, e.g., 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. 1), no. 15021/02, 18 November 2004; and Sukhobokov, cited above).
  • EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 15021/02

    WASSERMAN v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 14853/03
    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, e.g., 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. 1), no. 15021/02, 18 November 2004; and Sukhobokov, cited above).
  • EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 50178/99

    NIKITINE c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 14853/03
    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, 21.09.2006 - 14853/03
    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).
  • EGMR, 13.04.2006 - 75470/01

    SUKHOBOKOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 14853/03
    In any event, the Court reiterates that the quashing of a judgment in a manner which has been been found to have been incompatible with the principle of legal certainty and the applicant's "right to a court" cannot be accepted as a justification for the failure to enforce that judgment (see Sukhobokov v. Russia, no. 75470/01, § 26, 13 April 2006).
  • EGMR, 10.03.2017 - 52854/99

    RYABYKH AND 112 OTHER CASES AGAINST RUSSIA

    14853/03.

    14853/03.

  • 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, 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, 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

    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, 28.05.2014 - 21594/05

    [ENG]

    Le droit et la pratique internes pertinents applicables à la procédure de contrôle en révision à l'époque des faits sont résumés dans l'arrêt Borchtchevski c. Russie, no 14853/03, §§ 31-35, 21 septembre 2006.
  • EGMR, 10.04.2008 - 45017/04

    NEKHOROSHEV 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 rather long period of time 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, §§ 24-28, 21 July 2005; Volkova v. Russia, no. 48758/99, §§ 32-37, 5 April 2005; Ryabykh, cited above, §§ 51-58; Borshchevskiy v. Russia, no. 14853/03, §§ 41-50, 21 September 2006; Nelyubin v. Russia, no. 14502/04, §§ 22-30, 2 November 2006; Sergey Petrov v. Russia, no. 1861/05, §§ 21-29, 10 May 2007; and Zvezdin v. Russia, no. 25448/06, §§ 26-32, 14 June 2007).
  • EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 28400/04

    FISCHER c. ROUMANIE

    Il ne peut être dérogé à ce principe que lorsque des motifs substantiels et impérieux l'exigent (Riabykh, précité, § 52 et Borshchevskiy c. Russie, no 14853/03, § 42, 21 septembre 2006).
  • EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 3519/05

    SIDORENKO v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 27790/03

    KUDRINA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 30422/03

    PSHENICHNYY v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 20430/04

    GLADYSHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 934/03

    KOZEYEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 2993/03

    AKALINSKIY v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 09.06.2011 - 4994/04

    [ENG]

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht