Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FINKOV v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (19)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 27440/03

  The Court finally reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99

  RIABYKH c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 27440/03

  They may be disturbed only to correct fundamental errors (see Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, §§ 51-52, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 20887/03

  KOT v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 27440/03

  All of these grounds concerned different interpretation of the substantive, not procedural, law, which cannot be considered as an exceptional circumstance warranting the quashing of a binding and enforceable judgment and a reopening of the proceedings on the applicant's claims (see Kot v. Russia, no. 20887/03, § 29, 18 January 2007).

• EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 63973/00

  ANDROSOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 27440/03

  Secondly, the periods of pure non-enforcement should not be taken into account in respect of the complaint concerning the length if the Court has already considered these periods when assessing the complaint about the non-enforcement (see Malama v. Greece, no. 43622/98, § 34, ECHR 2001-II; Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00, § 76, 6 October 2005; Alekseyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 5836/05, 13 November 2008; Lukyanchenko v. Ukraine, no. 17327/02, § 33, 15 May 2008; Kabkov v. Russia, no. 12377/03, § 49, 17 July 2008; and Veretennikov v. Russia, no. 8363/03, § 31, 12 March 2009).
• EGMR, 01.12.2005 - 33914/02

  SKOROBOGATOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 27440/03

  It has been the Court's constant approach that an applicant cannot be blamed for taking full advantage of the resources afforded by national law in the defence of his interests (see Skorobogatova v. Russia, no. 33914/02, § 47, 1 December 2005).
• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 13151/04

  PROTSENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 27440/03

  To answer this complaint the Court will hence have to determine if the grounds for the quashing of the applicant's judgment fell within this exception (see Protsenko v. Russia, no. 13151/04, § 29, 31 July 2008).
• EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 10508/02

  GJONBOCARI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 27440/03

  Therefore the length of each set of proceedings should be separately examined (Gjonbocari and Others v. Albania, no. 10508/02, § 59, 23 October 2007).
• EGMR, 03.11.2005 - 38020/03

  ANTONOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 27440/03

  The domestic courts examined the merits of the case several times and did not idle (see Antonov v. Russia (dec.), no. 38020/03, 3 November 2005; Kravchuk v. Russia (dec.), no. 72749/01, 1 February 2005; Pronina v. Russia (dec.), no. 65167/01, 30 June 2005).
• EGMR, 13.09.2001 - 45943/99

  RUDAN v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 27440/03

  The Court firstly considers that the periods during which the domestic courts decided whether or not to re-open the case should be excluded since Article 6 does not apply to such proceedings (see, for example, Markin v. Russia (dec.), no. 59502/00, 16 September 2004; Rudan v. Croatia (dec.), no. 45943/99, 13 September 2001; Petersen v. Denmark, no. 28288/95, Commission decision of 16 April 1998).
• EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 72749/01

  KRAVCHUK v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 27440/03

  The domestic courts examined the merits of the case several times and did not idle (see Antonov v. Russia (dec.), no. 38020/03, 3 November 2005; Kravchuk v. Russia (dec.), no. 72749/01, 1 February 2005; Pronina v. Russia (dec.), no. 65167/01, 30 June 2005).
• EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 65167/01

  PRONINA v. RUSSIA
• EKMR, 16.04.1998 - 28288/95

  PETERSEN v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 5836/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 8363/03

  VERETENNIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 59498/00

  BURDOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 22000/03

  RAYLYAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 30616/05

  AKASHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 30672/03

  SOBELIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 13820/04

  GRIGORYEV AND KAKAUROVA v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.09.2016 - 58263/00

  TIMOFEYEV AND 234 OTHER CASES AGAINST THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

  27440/03.

  27440/03.

• EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 52166/08

  [ENG]

  As indicated above, the Court has already found violations of the Convention in similar and, on certain occasions, virtually identical circumstances concerning the quashing of final domestic judgments awarding benefits to former participants in the cleaning-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site (see, amongst many other authorities, Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00, 6 October 2005; Finkov v. Russia, no. 27440/03, 8 October 2009; and Davletkhanov and other "Chernobyl pensioners" v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 36299/03

  KOVALENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Some of these violations were found in similar and, on certain occasions, virtually identical circumstances concerning quashing of final domestic judgments awarding benefits to the former participants in the cleaning-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site (see, amongst many other authorities, Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00, 6 October 2005; Finkov v. Russia, no. 27440/03, 8 October 2009; and Davletkhanov and other "Chernobyl pensioners" v. Russia, nos.

• EGMR, 10.12.2020 - 48398/17

  PARINOV v. UKRAINE

  Such a delay cannot be attributable to the State, unless the consequent proceedings are unreasonably long (see Finkov v. Russia, no. 27440/03, § 105, 8 October 2009).
• EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 35254/04

  [ENG]

  The period after 5 May 1998 therefore falls within the scope of the Court's jurisdiction ratione temporis (see Grigoryev and Kakaurova v. Russia, no. 13820/04, § 26, 12 April 2007, and Finkov v. Russia, no. 27440/03, § 69, 8 October 2009).
• EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 18451/04

  [ENG]

  Some of these violations were found in similar circumstances and similarly concerned the quashing of final domestic judgments awarding benefits to the former participants in the clean-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site (see, among many other authorities, Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00, 6 October 2005; Finkov v. Russia, no. 27440/03, 8 October 2009; and Davletkhanov and other "Chernobyl pensioners" v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 24086/04

  BULYCHEVY v. RUSSIA

  The Court considers that the enforcement period does not fall within the period to be taken into account in respect of the applicants' complaint of the lengthy court proceedings because they have made a separate complaint about the non-enforcement proper (see Veretennikov v. Russia, no. 8363/03, § 31, 12 March 2009 and Finkov v. Russia, no. 27440/03, § 94, 8 October 2009).
• EGMR, 02.09.2008 - 6497/04

  KIRATLI c. TURQUIE

  La Cour estime donc que l'impossibilité d'interroger ou faire interroger les autres témoins de l'accusation n'a pas porté atteinte aux droits de la défense au point d'enfreindre les paragraphes 1 et 3 d) de l'article 6 (pour une approche similaire, Sevk et autres c. Turquie (déc.), nos 27440/03 et 27446/03, 11 décembre 2007).
• EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 7182/03

  [ENG]

  Some of these violations were found in similar and, on certain occasions, virtually identical circumstances concerning benefits to the former participants in the cleaning-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site (see, amongst many other authorities, Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00, 6 October 2005; Kot, cited above; Finkov v. Russia, no. 27440/03, 8 October 2009).