Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 2191/03, 3104/03, 16094/03, 24486/03   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2007,66347
EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 2191/03, 3104/03, 16094/03, 24486/03 (https://dejure.org/2007,66347)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21.06.2007 - 2191/03, 3104/03, 16094/03, 24486/03 (https://dejure.org/2007,66347)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21. Juni 2007 - 2191/03, 3104/03, 16094/03, 24486/03 (https://dejure.org/2007,66347)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,66347) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    PRIDATCHENKO AND OTHERS 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 Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - financial award (Mr Pridatchenko Mr Frolov) Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (Mr Pridatchenko Mr Frolov Mr Sychev) ...

 
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 ... (37)Zitiert selbst (11)

  • EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

    Öffentlicher Dienst und civil rights

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 2191/03
    However, in a recent judgment Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 62, 19 April 2007 the Grand Chamber developed the existing case-law proposing a new criteria of applicability of Article 6 to such disputes.
  • EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

    RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 2191/03
    Further, the Court reiterates that a "claim" can constitute a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable - for example, by virtue of a court judgment (see Burdov v. Russia, cited above, § 28, and Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, p. 84, § 59).
  • EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 8415/02

    METAXAS c. GRECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 2191/03
    Furthermore, the Court recalls that a person who has obtained an enforceable judgment against the State as a result of successful litigation cannot be required to resort to enforcement proceedings in order to have it executed (see Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, § 19, 27 May 2004).
  • EGMR, 13.01.2005 - 5124/03

    GIZZATOVA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 2191/03
    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 Burdov, cited above, §§ 34 et seq.; see also Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, §§ 35 et seq.; Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, §§ 19 et seq., 13 January 2005; Petrushko v. Russia, cited above, §§ 23 et seq.; Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, §§ 35 et seq., 18 November 2004).
  • EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 15021/02

    WASSERMAN v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 2191/03
    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 Burdov, cited above, §§ 34 et seq.; see also Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, §§ 35 et seq.; Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, §§ 19 et seq., 13 January 2005; Petrushko v. Russia, cited above, §§ 23 et seq.; Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, §§ 35 et seq., 18 November 2004).
  • EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 23405/03

    REYNBAKH v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 2191/03
    It would impose an excessive burden on the applicant if he has to forward the writ of execution from one competent State agency to another (see Reynbakh v. Russia, no. 23405/03, § 23, 29 September 2005).
  • EGMR, 07.07.2005 - 41302/02

    MALINOVSKIY v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 2191/03
    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 Burdov, cited above, §§ 34 et seq.; see also Malinovskiy v. Russia, no. 41302/02, §§ 35 et seq.; Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, §§ 19 et seq., 13 January 2005; Petrushko v. Russia, cited above, §§ 23 et seq.; Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, §§ 35 et seq., 18 November 2004).
  • EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 69529/01

    PRAVEDNAYA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 2191/03
    In view of the above, the Court makes no award under Article 41 of the Convention (see, for example, Sirin v. Turkey, no. 47328/99, §§ 27-29, 15 March 2005, and Pravednaya v. Russia, no. 69529/01, §§ 43-46, 18 November 2004).
  • EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 69306/01

    SHVEDOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 2191/03
    In any event, the regulations on enforcement, to which the Government referred, did not preclude the applicant from seeking the enforcement in a normal way, that is through the bailiffs (see the "Relevant domestic law" part above; see also Shvedov v. Russia, no. 69306/01, § 34, 20 October 2005), and the Government did not deny that the applicant had made recourse to that authority.
  • EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 43726/02

    KANAYEV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 2191/03
    Until recently, employment disputes between the State and its military personnel were not, as a rule, regarded as "civil" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and thus fell outside of the Court's competence ratione materiae (see Pellegrin v. France [GC], no. 28541/95, §§ 65-67, ECHR 1999-VIII; see also Kanayev v. Russia, no. 43726/02, § 16, 27 July 2006).
  • EGMR, 15.03.2005 - 47328/99

    SIRIN v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 21.09.2016 - 58263/00

    TIMOFEYEV AND 234 OTHER CASES AGAINST THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

    2191/03+.

    2191/03+.

  • EGMR, 18.07.2017 - 13122/11

    KOROTYAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    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, 10.12.2013 - 45394/06

    [ENG]

    As the Court has held in a number of previous cases, the inability for a successful litigant to have a judgment or a final administrative decision rendered in his favour fully enforced, if that situation persists for a relatively long period of time, may constitute an interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, in the sense of the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among many authorities, Pridatchenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 2191/03, 3104/03, 16094/03 and 24486/03, § 50, 21 June 2007; Burdov v. Russia, cited above, § 40; Ramadhi and Others v. Albania, no. 38222/02, §§ 76-77, 13 November 2007; and Viasu v. Roumania, no. 75951/01, § 60, 9 December 2008).
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