Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GERASIMENKO v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 Not necessary to examine Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses partial award - domestic and convention proceedings (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 17/02

  LIGERES v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2005 - 24657/03

  17/02/2006.
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 25964/02

  POZNAKHIRINA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2005 - 24657/03

  Rn. 25 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, among other authorities, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III and, more recently, Petrushko, cited above, or Poznakhirina v. Russia, no. 25964/02, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 36494/02

  PETRUSHKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2005 - 24657/03

  (see, e.g., Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, § 16, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 37453/97

  AKMAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2005 - 24657/03

  Rn. 18 On the facts, the Court observes that the Government failed to submit with the Court any formal statement capable of falling into the latter category and offering a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (see, by contrast, to Akman v. Turkey (striking out), no. 37453/97, §§ 23-24, ECHR 2001-VI).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.09.2016 - 58263/00

  TIMOFEYEV AND 234 OTHER CASES AGAINST THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

  24657/03.

  24657/03.

• EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 25448/06

  ZVEZDIN v. RUSSIA

  In so far as the applicant may be understood to complain about the lack of an effective domestic remedy against the continued non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour, the Court considers that, having regard to the above findings (see paragraph 47 above), it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there has been a violation of Article 13 (see Tolokonnikova v. Russia, no. 24651/03, § 27, 17 November 2005, and Gerasimenko v. Russia, no. 24657/03, § 29, 17 November 2005).
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 26338/06

  MURTAZIN v. RUSSIA

  In so far as the applicant may be understood to complain about the lack of an effective domestic remedy against the continued non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour, the Court considers that, having regard to the above findings (see paragraph 42 above), it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there has been a violation of Article 13 (see Tolokonnikova v. Russia, no. 24651/03, § 27, 17 November 2005, and Gerasimenko v. Russia, no. 24657/03, § 29, 17 November 2005).