Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIROSHNIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 07.10.2005 - 18/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 20750/04

  18/04/2006.

  18/04/2006.

• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 01.04.2005 - 16/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 20750/04

  16/04/2003.
• RG, 18.05.1905 - 20/05

  Ist fahrlässige Übertretung der Vorschrift des § 368 Nr. 10 St.G.B.'s strafbar?

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 20750/04

  20/05/2003.

• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTER OF LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CAMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 20750/04

  Having regard to the facts of these cases, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal question, that is the quashing by way of supervisory review of the judgments, raised in the present applications and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on these additional complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, with further references).
• EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 20887/03

  KOT v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 20750/04

  The relevant domestic provisions governing the supervisory review procedure in force between 1 February 2003 and 7 January 2008 is summed up in the Court's judgment in the case of Kot v. Russia (no. 20887/03, § 17, 18 January 2007).
• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 8549/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 20750/04

  Having regard to the principles developed in its case-law on determination of compensation in similar cases (see Streltsov and other "Novocherkassk military pensioners" cases v. Russia, nos. 8549/06 and 86 others, § 59, 29 July 2010), the Court considers it reasonable and equitable to award Mr Zinovets and Mr Polevoy a total of EUR 2, 000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 13151/04

  PROTSENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 20750/04

  As regards the procedural defects relied upon by the supervisory review court in the Zinovets and Polevoy applications (judgment of 30 January 2006, upheld on 1 March 2006), they could not be considered as justifying the quashing of the final judgment since it is not alleged that these defects affected the defendant's procedural rights (see, by way of contrast, Protsenko v. Russia, no. 13151/04, §§ 30-33, 31 July 2008).
• EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 14290/03

  KAZAKEVICH AND OTHER "ARMY PENSIONERS" CASES v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 20750/04

  Given that these three applications concern similar facts and complaints and raise almost identical issues under the Convention, the Court decides to join them and to consider them in a single judgment (see Kazakevich and 9 other "Army Pensioners" cases v. Russia, nos. 14290/03, 19089/04, 42059/04, 27800/04, 43505/04, 43538/04, 3614/05, 30906/05, 39901/05 and 524/06, § 15, 14 January 2010).
• EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 25448/06

  ZVEZDIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 20750/04

  This issue was only raised in their supervisory review application lodged after the judgment in the applicants' favour became final and enforceable (compare Talysheva v. Russia, no. 24559/04, § 26, 22 December 2009, and Zvezdin v. Russia, no. 25448/06, § 30, 14 June 2007).
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 24559/04

  TALYSHEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 20750/04

  This issue was only raised in their supervisory review application lodged after the judgment in the applicants' favour became final and enforceable (compare Talysheva v. Russia, no. 24559/04, § 26, 22 December 2009, and Zvezdin v. Russia, no. 25448/06, § 30, 14 June 2007).
• EGMR, 23.07.2009 - 8269/02

  SUTYAZHNIK v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 42968/06

  SHOROKHOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Some of those violations were found in similar circumstances and similarly concerned the quashing of final domestic judgments making awards (see, among many other authorities, Kovalenko and Others, [Committee], nos. 36299/03 and 6 others, 8 December 2015; Zelenkevich and Others v. Russia, [Committee], no. 14805/02, 20 June 2013; and, on account of the lack of jurisdiction of the court, Miroshnikov and Others v. Russia, [Committee], nos. 20750/04 and 2 others, § 15, 27 September 2016).