Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZVEZDIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Zitiert selbst (14)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 25964/02

  POZNAKHIRINA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 25448/06

  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, for example, 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, 27.05.2004 - 8415/02

  METAXAS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 25448/06

  As to the Government's argument concerning the failure of the applicant to comply with the requirements of the domestic law when submitting the warrant of execution, 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; Gorokhov and Rusyayev, no. 38305/02, § 33, 17 March 2005; Koltsov v. Russia, no. 41304/02, § 16, 24 February 2005; and Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, § 18, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 36494/02

  PETRUSHKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 25448/06

  As to the Government's argument concerning the failure of the applicant to comply with the requirements of the domestic law when submitting the warrant of execution, 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; Gorokhov and Rusyayev, no. 38305/02, § 33, 17 March 2005; Koltsov v. Russia, no. 41304/02, § 16, 24 February 2005; and Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, § 18, 24 February 2005).

• EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 15021/02

  WASSERMAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 25448/06

  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, for example, 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, 13.04.2006 - 75470/01

  SUKHOBOKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 25448/06

  In any event, the Court reiterates that the quashing of a judgment in a manner which has 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, 17.03.2005 - 38305/02

  GOROKHOV AND RUSYAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 25448/06

  As to the Government's argument concerning the failure of the applicant to comply with the requirements of the domestic law when submitting the warrant of execution, 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; Gorokhov and Rusyayev, no. 38305/02, § 33, 17 March 2005; Koltsov v. Russia, no. 41304/02, § 16, 24 February 2005; and Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, § 18, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 41304/02

  KOLTSOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 25448/06

  As to the Government's argument concerning the failure of the applicant to comply with the requirements of the domestic law when submitting the warrant of execution, 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; Gorokhov and Rusyayev, no. 38305/02, § 33, 17 March 2005; Koltsov v. Russia, no. 41304/02, § 16, 24 February 2005; and Petrushko v. Russia, no. 36494/02, § 18, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 17.11.2005 - 24657/03

  GERASIMENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 25448/06

  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, 17.11.2005 - 24651/03

  TOLOKONNIKOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 25448/06

  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, 20.07.2004 - 50178/99

  NIKITINE c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 25448/06

  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-VIII).
• EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 20887/03

  KOT v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 63973/00

  ANDROSOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 14502/04

  NELYUBIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 14853/03

  BORSHCHEVSKIY v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.03.2017 - 52854/99

  RYABYKH AND 112 OTHER CASES AGAINST RUSSIA

  25448/06.

  25448/06.

• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 8549/06

  [ENG]

  The Government did not point to any exceptional circumstances that would have prevented the military commissariat from making use of an ordinary appeal in good time (see, in identical context, Zvezdin v. Russia, no. 25448/06, §§ 30-32, 14 June 2007, and Murtazin, cited above, §§ 27-29).
• EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 20750/04

  [ENG]

  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, 02.05.2013 - 15037/05

  [ENG]

  The Court further recalls that it has already found numerous violations of the Convention on account of the quashing of binding and enforceable judgments by way of supervisory review in virtually identical circumstances involving retired servicemen from Novocherkassk (see, among others, Zvezdin v. Russia, no. 25448/06, §§ 30-32, 14 June 2007, and Streltsov and other "Novocherkassk military pensioners" cases v. Russia, nos. 8549/06 et al., §§ 49-57, 29 July 2010).
• EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 15242/04

  KUZMINA v. RUSSIA

  However, that right would be illusory if a Contracting State's domestic legal system allowed a final and enforceable judicial decision to be quashed by a higher court merely on the ground of disagreement with the assessment made by lower courts, with a view to carrying out a fresh examination (see Kot v. Russia, no. 20887/03, §§ 27-30, 18 January 2007, and Zvezdin v. Russia, no. 25448/06, § 28, 14 June 2007).
• EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 19136/04

  [ENG]

  However, that right would be illusory if a Contracting State's domestic legal system allowed a final and enforceable judicial decision to be quashed by a higher court merely on the ground of disagreement with the assessment made by lower courts, with a view to carrying out a fresh examination (see Kot v. Russia, no. 20887/03, §§ 27-30, 18 January 2007, and Zvezdin v. Russia, no. 25448/06, § 28, 14 June 2007).
• EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 51380/07

  [ENG]

  However, that right would be illusory if a Contracting State's domestic legal system allowed a final and enforceable judicial decision to be quashed by a higher court merely on the ground of disagreement with the assessment made by lower courts with a view to carrying out a fresh examination (see Kot v. Russia, no. 20887/03, §§ 27-30, 18 January 2007, and Zvezdin v. Russia, no. 25448/06, § 28, 14 June 2007).
• 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, 15.03.2016 - 34248/05

  [ENG]

  As regards the Shapkin case, in relation to which the Government referred to the need to correct a procedural defect resulting from a breach of the rules of territorial jurisdiction, the Court reiterates that it has already found that such a defect does not constitute a circumstance that is of such a fundamental and compelling character as to justify the quashing of a final domestic judgment in the applicant's favour (see Zvezdin v. Russia, no. 25448/06, §§ 30 and 31, 14 June 2007).
• EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 3244/04

  DEMENTYEV v. RUSSIA

  However, that right would be illusory if a Contracting State's domestic legal system allowed a final and enforceable judicial decision to be quashed by a higher court merely on the ground of disagreement with the assessment made by lower courts with the view of carrying out a fresh examination (see Kot v. Russia, no. 20887/03, §§ 27-30, 18 January 2007, and Zvezdin v. Russia, no. 25448/06, § 28, 14 June 2007).
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 1526/02

  IGNA ET IGNA (VALEA) c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 20023/07

  [ENG]