Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LYUBOV STETSENKO v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Stetsenko v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 31365/96

  VARBANOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 26216/07

  It further reiterates that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, among other reasons, if it was knowingly based on false information (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X; Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005; Rehák v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004; and Kerechashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, ECHR 2006-V).
• EGMR, 03.07.2007 - 25101/05

  M. P. u. a. gegen Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 26216/07

  Incomplete and therefore misleading information may also amount to an abuse of the right of individual petition, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 25101/05, 3 July 2007, and Hadrabova and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 74153/01

  POPOV v. MOLDOVA (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 26216/07

  It further reiterates that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, among other reasons, if it was knowingly based on false information (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X; Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005; Rehák v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004; and Kerechashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, ECHR 2006-V).

• EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 22000/03

  RAYLYAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 26216/07

  The reasonableness of such a delay is to be assessed having particular regard to the complexity of the enforcement proceedings, the applicant's own conduct and that of the competent authorities, and the amount and nature of the court award (see Raylyan v. Russia, no. 22000/03, § 31, 15 February 2007).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67208/01

  REHÁK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 26216/07

  It further reiterates that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, among other reasons, if it was knowingly based on false information (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X; Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005; Rehák v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004; and Kerechashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, ECHR 2006-V).
• EGMR, 02.05.2006 - 5667/02

  KÉRÉTCHACHVILI c. GEORGIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 26216/07

  It further reiterates that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, among other reasons, if it was knowingly based on false information (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X; Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005; Rehák v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004; and Kerechashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, ECHR 2006-V).
• EGMR, 25.09.2007 - 42165/02

  HADRABOVA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 26216/07

  42165/02 and 466/03, 25 September 2007).
• EKMR, 08.09.1997 - 30229/96

  J. M.F. ET AUTRES contre le PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 26216/07

  From the ratification date onwards, all the State's alleged acts and omissions must conform to the Convention or its Protocols, and subsequent facts fall within the Court's jurisdiction even where they are merely extensions of an already existing situation (see Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal, nos. 29813/96 and 30229/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 29813/96

  ALMEIDA GARRETT, MASCARENHAS FALCAO AND OTHERS v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 26216/07

  From the ratification date onwards, all the State's alleged acts and omissions must conform to the Convention or its Protocols, and subsequent facts fall within the Court's jurisdiction even where they are merely extensions of an already existing situation (see Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal, nos. 29813/96 and 30229/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-I).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 35259/04

  KUKSA CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 32 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  26216/07.

  26216/07.

• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 33636/09

  [ENG]

  Compte tenu de la conclusion à laquelle elle est arrivée sur le terrain de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention, la Cour estime qu'il n'y a lieu d'examiner ni la recevabilité ni le bien-fondé du grief présenté par les requérants sous l'angle de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 à la Convention (S.C. Britanic World S.R.L. c. Roumanie, no 8602/09, § 50, 26 avril 2016 ; Rozalia Avram c. Roumanie, no 19037/07, § 46, 16 septembre 2014; Bochan c. Ukraine (no 2) [GC], no 22251/08, § 68, CEDH 2015, Trapeznikov et autres, précité, § 41, et Lyubov Stetsenko c. Russie, no 26216/07, § 92, 17 avril 2014).
• EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 42140/05

  [ENG]

  It may, however, have regard to the facts prior to ratification inasmuch as they could be considered to have created a situation extending beyond that date or may be relevant for the understanding of facts occurring after that date (see, among many other authorities, Lyubov Stetsenko v. Russia, no. 26216/07, §§ 75-77, 17 April 2014, and Broniowski v. Poland (dec.) [GC], no. 31443/96, §§ 74-77, ECHR 2002-X).

• EGMR, 30.03.2021 - 16203/13

  ZHIRKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 4 other applications

  Having regard to its conclusion under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaint submitted by the applicants under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see S.C. Britanic World S.R.L. v. Romania, no. 8602/09, § 50, 26 April 2016; Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 68, ECHR 2015; and Lyubov Stetsenko v. Russia, no. 26216/07, § 92, 17 April 2014).
• EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 5489/10

  YUNUSOVA v. RUSSIA

  Given its above findings and having regard to the nature of the domestic awards made by national courts in the present case, the Court considers that there is no need for a separate examination of the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Lyubov Stetsenko v. Russia, no. 26216/07, § 92, 17 April 2014, and Konstantinova and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 60708/13, § 29, 5 February 2019).
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 22764/12

  VANYUKOVA v. RUSSIA

  Given its findings under Article 6 above, as well as having regard to the nature of the domestic award made by the national court in the present case, the Court considers that there is no need for a separate examination of the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Lyubov Stetsenko v. Russia, no. 26216/07, § 92, 17 April 2014).
• EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 83399/17

  ANDREYEVY v. RUSSIA

  Having regard to its conclusion under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that there is no need to consider either the admissibility or the merits of the complaint submitted by the applicants under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see S.C. Britanic World S.R.L. v. Romania, no. 8602/09, § 50, 26 April 2016 ; Bochan v. Ukraine (no 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 68, CEDH 2015; Rozalia Avram v. Romania, no. 19037/07, § 46, 16 September 2014; and Lyubov Stetsenko v. Russia, no. 26216/07, § 92, 17 April 2014).
• EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 60708/13

  KONSTANTINOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Given its findings under Article 6 above, as well as having regard to the nature of the domestic award made by national courts in the present case, the Court considers that there is no need for a separate examination of the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Lyubov Stetsenko v. Russia, no. 26216/07, § 92, 17 April 2014).