Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHIBAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SHIBAYEVA v. RUSSIA + 13 other applications

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 44387/04

  TKHYEGEPSO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 13813/06

  44387/04 and 11 others, §§ 21-24, 25 October 2011).
• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 51391/07

  STROGANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 13813/06

  In the light of the adoption of the new domestic remedy and in line with its previous decisions, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the applicant's complaint under Article 13 in the relevant part (see, mutatis mutandis, Konstantinova and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 60708/13, §§ 30-33, 5 February 2019; Stroganova and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 51391/07, 6 November 2018; and Tkhyegepso and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 60708/13

  KONSTANTINOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 13813/06

  In the light of the adoption of the new domestic remedy and in line with its previous decisions, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the applicant's complaint under Article 13 in the relevant part (see, mutatis mutandis, Konstantinova and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 60708/13, §§ 30-33, 5 February 2019; Stroganova and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 51391/07, 6 November 2018; and Tkhyegepso and Others v. Russia, nos.

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 13813/06

  Thus, in so far the Government may be understood as arguing that the applicant did not use an effective domestic remedy in respect of the delay in her reinstatement as ordered by the judgment of 20 October 2005, the Court considers their argument unsubstantiated (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V; Kranz v. Poland, no. 6214/02, § 23, 17 February 2004; and Skawinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 42096/98, 4 March 2003).
• EGMR, 28.06.1990 - 11761/85

  Obermeier ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 13813/06

  As regards the last criterion, it has been the Court's constant approach that employment disputes require the authorities to act with particular expedition (see, mutatis mutandis, Obermeier v. Austria, judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A no. 179, § 72).
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 29920/05

  GERASIMOV v. RUSSIA and 14 other applications

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 13813/06

  29920/05 and 10 others, § 230, 1 July 2014).
• EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 22000/03

  RAYLYAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 13813/06

  The Court recalls that the reasonableness of the delay is to be determined having regard in particular to the complexity of the enforcement proceedings, the applicant's behaviour and that of the competent authorities, and what was at stake for the applicant in a given case (see Raylyan v. Russia, no. 22000/03, §§ 31-34, 15 February 2007, with further references).
• EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 27451/09

  NAGOVITSYN AND NALGIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 13813/06

  27451/09 and 60650/09, §§ 15-19, 23 September 2010).
• EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 14330/07

  BELKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 13813/06

  The Court has consistently held that a delay of less than one year in payment of a monetary judicial award was in principle compatible with the Convention (see, for example, Belkin and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 14330/07 and 15 other applications, 5 February 2009).
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 6214/02

  KRANZ v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 13813/06

  Thus, in so far the Government may be understood as arguing that the applicant did not use an effective domestic remedy in respect of the delay in her reinstatement as ordered by the judgment of 20 October 2005, the Court considers their argument unsubstantiated (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V; Kranz v. Poland, no. 6214/02, § 23, 17 February 2004; and Skawinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 42096/98, 4 March 2003).
• EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 77056/14

  SHTOLTS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen