Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×
Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 10.03.2017

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 2999/03   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2007,51918
EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 2999/03 (https://dejure.org/2007,51918)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 07.06.2007 - 2999/03 (https://dejure.org/2007,51918)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 07. Juni 2007 - 2999/03 (https://dejure.org/2007,51918)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,51918) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (74)Zitiert selbst (13)

  • EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

    Öffentlicher Dienst und civil rights

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 2999/03
    However, in its recent judgment in the case of Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland ([GC], no. 63235/00, 19 April 2007), the Court found that the functional criterion, adopted in the Pellegrin judgment, did not simplify the analysis of the applicability of Article 6 in proceedings to which a civil servant was a party or brought about a greater degree of certainty in this area as intended (§ 55).

    It will be for the respondent Government to demonstrate, first, that a civil-servant applicant does not have a right of access to a court under national law and, second, that the exclusion of the rights under Article 6 for the civil servant is justified." (see Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, 19 April 2007, § 62).

  • EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 25964/02

    POZNAKHIRINA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 2999/03
    Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see 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. 15021/02, 18 November 2004), the Court finds that by failing to comply with the judgment of 22 February 2002 in the applicant's favour the domestic authorities violated his right to a court and prevented him from receiving the money which he was entitled to receive.
  • EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 8415/02

    METAXAS c. GRECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 2999/03
    The Court further recalls that the adequacy of the compensation would be diminished if it were to be paid without reference to various circumstances liable to reduce its value, such as an extended delay in enforcement (see Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 28, 13 January 2005; Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, § 36, 27 May 2004).
  • EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 63973/00

    ANDROSOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 2999/03
    The Court reiterates that quashing of a final and enforceable judgment amounts to an interference with the judgment beneficiary's right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (see, among other authorities, Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00, § 69, 6 October 2005).
  • EGMR, 13.01.2005 - 5124/03

    GIZZATOVA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 2999/03
    The Court further recalls that the adequacy of the compensation would be diminished if it were to be paid without reference to various circumstances liable to reduce its value, such as an extended delay in enforcement (see Gizzatova v. Russia, no. 5124/03, § 28, 13 January 2005; Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, § 36, 27 May 2004).
  • EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 15021/02

    WASSERMAN v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 2999/03
    Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see 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. 15021/02, 18 November 2004), the Court finds that by failing to comply with the judgment of 22 February 2002 in the applicant's favour the domestic authorities violated his right to a court and prevented him from receiving the money which he was entitled to receive.
  • EGMR, 13.04.2006 - 75470/01

    SUKHOBOKOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 2999/03
    In this respect, the Court reiterates that it has recently addressed and dismissed the same argument by the Government in the case of Sukhobokov v. Russia (no. 75470/01, 13 April 2006).
  • EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 21769/03

    VELSKAYA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 2999/03
    It follows that at least from 22 February 2002 to 16 July 2003 the judgment of 22 February 2002 was enforceable and it was incumbent on the State to abide by its terms (cf. Velskaya v. Russia, no. 21769/03, § 18, 5 October 2006).
  • EGMR, 08.12.1999 - 28541/95
    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 2999/03
    The Government, relying on the Court's judgments in the cases of Pellegrin v. France ([GC], no. 28541/95, ECHR 1999-VIII) and Kanayev v. Russia (no. 43726/02, 27 July 2006), argued that the applicant's complaint under Article 6 of the Convention was incompatible ratione materiae because the applicant had been a military officer and the judgment award had concerned wage arrears for his military service.
  • EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 20887/03

    KOT v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 2999/03
    The fact that the Presidium disagreed with the assessment made by the first-instance and appeal courts was not, in itself, an exceptional circumstance warranting the quashing of a binding and enforceable judgment and re-opening of the proceedings on the applicant's claim." (no. 20887/03, § 29, 18 January 2007).
  • EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 14502/04

    NELYUBIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 14853/03

    BORSHCHEVSKIY v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 43726/02

    KANAYEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 10.03.2017 - 52854/99

    RYABYKH AND 112 OTHER CASES AGAINST RUSSIA

    2999/03.

    2999/03.

  • EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 7356/10

    LUCKY DEV v. SWEDEN

    As they are in exactly the same situation as the successful applicant they should be treated in the same way (see, for example, Dovguchits v. Russia, no. 2999/03, § 24, 7 June 2007; Redka v. Ukraine, no. 17788/02, § 25, 21 June 2007; Rizhamadze v. Georgia, no. 2745/03, § 27, 31 July 2007; Stefanescu v. Romania, no. 9555/03, § 20, 11 October 2007; and Vanjak v. Croatia, no. 29889/04, § 32, 14 January 2010).
  • EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 8549/06

    [ENG]

    As regards the Government's argument about an allegedly incorrect application of the substantive law, the Court reiterates its constant approach that in the absence of a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings a party's disagreement with the assessment made by the lower courts is not a circumstance of a substantial and compelling character warranting the quashing of a binding and enforceable judgment and re-opening of the proceedings on the applicant's claim (see Dovguchits v. Russia, no. 2999/03, § 30, 7 June 2007; and Kot, cited above, § 29).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 10.03.2017 - 52854/99, 11227/05, 39897/02, 2993/03, 51380/07, 32991/05, 63973/00, 44142/05, 24130/04, 17472/04, 30671/03, 42234/04, 14853/03, 62866/00, 23795/02, 30714/03, 5964/02, 30686/03, 7182/03, 18967/07, 3244/04, 27101/04, 18451/04, 2999/03, 7319/05, 12157/06, 3   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2017,6535
EGMR, 10.03.2017 - 52854/99, 11227/05, 39897/02, 2993/03, 51380/07, 32991/05, 63973/00, 44142/05, 24130/04, 17472/04, 30671/03, 42234/04, 14853/03, 62866/00, 23795/02, 30714/03, 5964/02, 30686/03, 7182/03, 18967/07, 3244/04, 27101/04, 18451/04, 2999/03, 7319/05, 12157/06, 3 (https://dejure.org/2017,6535)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10.03.2017 - 52854/99, 11227/05, 39897/02, 2993/03, 51380/07, 32991/05, 63973/00, 44142/05, 24130/04, 17472/04, 30671/03, 42234/04, 14853/03, 62866/00, 23795/02, 30714/03, 5964/02, 30686/03, 7182/03, 18967/07, 3244/04, 27101/04, 18451/04, 2999/03, 7319/05, 12157/06, 3 (https://dejure.org/2017,6535)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10. März 2017 - 52854/99, 11227/05, 39897/02, 2993/03, 51380/07, 32991/05, 63973/00, 44142/05, 24130/04, 17472/04, 30671/03, 42234/04, 14853/03, 62866/00, 23795/02, 30714/03, 5964/02, 30686/03, 7182/03, 18967/07, 3244/04, 27101/04, 18451/04, 2999/03, 7319/05, 12157/06, 3 (https://dejure.org/2017,6535)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,6535) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    RYABYKH ET 112 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA RUSSIE

    Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    RYABYKH AND 112 OTHER CASES AGAINST RUSSIA

    Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

  • EGMR, 21.02.2002 - 52854/99
  • EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99
  • EGMR, 10.03.2017 - 52854/99, 11227/05, 39897/02, 2993/03, 51380/07, 32991/05, 63973/00, 44142/05, 24130/04, 17472/04, 30671/03, 42234/04, 14853/03, 62866/00, 23795/02, 30714/03, 5964/02, 30686/03, 7182/03, 18967/07, 3244/04, 27101/04, 18451/04, 2999/03, 7319/05, 12157/06, 3
 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (143)

  • VK Rheinland-Pfalz, 27.05.2005 - 15/05

    Nachprüfungsverfahren: Antragsbefugnis trotz fehlender Angebotsabgabe

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2017 - 52854/99
    15/05/2007.

    15/05/2007.

    15/05/2007.

    15/05/2007.

    15/05/2007.

    15/05/2007.

    15/05/2007.

    15/05/2006.

    15/05/2007.

    15/05/2007.

    15/05/2007.

    15/05/2007.

    15/05/2007.

    15/05/2007.

    15/05/2006.

    15/05/2007.

    15/05/2006.

  • EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 15/02

    DURUK ET YÜCEDAG c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2017 - 52854/99
    15/02/2006.

    15/02/2007.

    15/02/2007.

    15/02/2007.

    15/02/2007.

    15/02/2007.

    15/02/2007.

    15/02/2006.

    15/02/2007.

    15/02/2006.

    15/02/2006.

    15/02/2007.

    15/02/2006.

    15/02/2006.

  • KAG Freiburg, 04.04.2008 - 10/07

    Unterlassungsanspruch bezüglich der Anwendung einer Dienstvereinbarung über eine …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2017 - 52854/99
    10/07/2008.

    10/07/2008.

    10/07/2014.

    10/07/2014.

    10/07/2008.

    10/07/2008.

    10/07/2014.

  • EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 33636/09

    [ENG]

    Le Gouvernement distingue enfin les présentes espèces de l'affaire Riabykh c. Russie (no 52854/99, §§ 27-34, CEDH 2003-IX), indiquant que, en l'occurrence, les juridictions supérieures ont détecté des cas de mauvaise administration de la justice et ont réformé les jugements litigieux au motif que les tribunaux de première instance avaient fait preuve d'un excès de pouvoir en ce qu'ils avaient réexaminé des questions déjà tranchées par d'autres décisions judiciaires passées en force de chose jugée.
  • EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 60975/08

    SIEMASZKO c. POLOGNE

    Citant les affaires X. c. Allemagne ((déc.), no 8724/79, 6 mars 1980), Rudzinska c. Pologne ((déc.), no 45223/99, 7 septembre 1999), Gayduk c. Ukraine ((déc.), no 45526/99, 2 juillet 2002) ou Ryabykh c. Russie (no 52854/99, 24 juillet 2003), le Gouvernement fait observer que les États ne sont pas responsables pour des sommes déposées dans des banques privées et que l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 à la Convention ne leur impose aucune obligation de maintenir, par une indexation systématique, le pouvoir d'achat des sommes concernées.
  • EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 34938/04

    SUSLIN v. RUSSIA

    Such a solution would have been in line with its reasoning in other cases (see, for example, Lukyanchenko v. Ukraine, no. 17327/02, §§ 33-34, 15 May 2008; Androsov v. Russia, no. 63973/00, §§ 73-76, 6 October 2005).
  • EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 4351/02

    AMURARITEI c. ROUMANIE

    Or, dans ce cas, la remise en cause, dans le cadre de l'action en revendication, du jugement définitif et irrévocable du 25 octobre 1991 exécuté le 7 août 1995, ne saurait être justifiée sous l'angle de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (voir, mutatis mutandis, Riabykh c. Russie, no 52854/99, § 52, CEDH 2003-IX).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 52946/12

    SIMION c. ROUMANIE

    La Cour renvoie aux principes généraux établis en matière de sécurité juridique dans les affaires Brumărescu c. Roumanie ([GC], no 28342/95, §§ 61-62, CEDH 1999-VII) et Riabykh c. Russie (no 52854/99, § 52, CEDH 2003-IX) et résumés, par exemple, dans l'affaire Protsenko c. Russie (no 13151/04, §§ 25-28, 31 juillet 2008).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht