Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PSHENICHNYY v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 20887/03

  KOT v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 30422/03

  The Court found that in the absence of a fundamental defect in the proceedings a party's disagreement with the assessment made by the first-instance and appeal courts was 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 v. Russia, no. 20887/03, § 29, 18 January 2007).
• EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 63973/00

  ANDROSOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 30422/03

  The Court reiterates that quashing of an 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, 24.02.1983 - 7525/76

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 30422/03

  Such agreements may show, if they are legally enforceable, that the sums claimed are actually payable by the applicant (see Iatridis v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 31107/96, § 55, ECHR 2000-XI; and Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom (Article 50), judgment of 24 February 1983, Series A no. 59, § 22).

• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 2999/03

  DOVGUCHITS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 30422/03

  The Court found that in the absence of a fundamental defect in the proceedings a party's disagreement with the assessment made by the first-instance and appeal courts was 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 v. Russia, no. 20887/03, § 29, 18 January 2007).
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 4171/04

  GRIDIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 30422/03

  The Court further reiterates that there is no requirement that an applicant furnish any proof of the non-pecuniary damage he or she sustained (see Gridin v. Russia, no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006).
• EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 14853/03

  BORSHCHEVSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 30422/03

  The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for re-examination (see Borshchevskiy v. Russia, no. 14853/03, § 42, 21 September 2006, with further references).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.03.2017 - 52854/99

  RYABYKH AND 112 OTHER CASES AGAINST RUSSIA

  30422/03.

  30422/03.

• EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 46577/15

  IVANOVA AND CHERKEZOV v. BULGARIA

  This being the case in Bulgaria (see paragraph 44 above, and compare Saghatelyan v. Armenia, no. 7984/06, § 62, 20 October 2015, and contrast Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom (Article 50), 24 February 1983, § 22, Series A no. 59, and Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 38, 14 February 2008), the Court accepts that the costs claimed were actually incurred by the applicants, even if for the time being no payments have taken place.
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

  Verletzung der Unschuldsvermutung eines Verstorbenen durch gerichtliche …

  55.  As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court reiterates its constant position that an applicant cannot be required to furnish any proof of non-pecuniary damage he or she has sustained (see, among many others, Antipenkov v. Russia, no. 33470/03, § 82, 15 October 2009; Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 35, 14 February 2008; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 113, ECHR 2007"VII (extracts); and Gridin v. Russia, no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006).

• EGMR, 07.03.2023 - 29999/04

  MAMASAKHLISI v. GEORGIA AND RUSSIA

  The fees payable to a representative under a conditional fee agreement are actually incurred only if that agreement is enforceable in the respective jurisdiction (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom (Article 50), 24 February 1983, § 22, Series A no. 59; Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 38, 14 February 2008; Saghatelyan v. Armenia, no. 7984/06, § 62, 20 October 2015, and Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria, no. 46577/15, § 89, 21 April 2016).
• EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 44704/11

  POPOVYCH v. UKRAINE

  The Court notes that the applicant submitted a half-page list of legal services provided to him by his representative both domestically and before the Court, but failed to provide any documents proving that he had paid his lawyer for the services rendered or that he was under a legal obligation to do so (see, mutatis mutandis, Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 38, 14 February 2008).
• EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 42126/15

  O.J. v. GEORGIA AND RUSSIA and 1 other application

  48205/99 and 2 others, § 27, 14 May 2002; Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 38, 14 February 2008; Saghatelyan v. Armenia, no. 7984/06, § 62, 20 October 2015; and Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria, no. 46577/15, § 89, 21 April 2016).
• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42255/04

  [ENG]

  The Court reiterates its constant position that an applicant cannot be required to furnish any proof of non-pecuniary damage he or she has sustained (see, among many others, Antipenkov v. Russia, no. 33470/03, § 82, 15 October 2009; Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 35, 14 February 2008; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 113, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts); and Gridin v. Russia, no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006).
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16903/03

  DENISOVA AND MOISEYEVA v. RUSSIA

  As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court reiterates its constant position that an applicant cannot be required to furnish any proof of non-pecuniary damage he or she has sustained (see, among many others, Antipenkov v. Russia, no. 33470/03, § 82, 15 October 2009; Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 35, 14 February 2008; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 113, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts); and Gridin v. Russia, no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006).
• EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 39654/07

  PODRUGINA AND YEDINOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court considers that the circumstance referred to was by its nature and significance such as to justify the quashing of the final judgment and that this was not inconsistent with the principle of legal certainty (see Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 26, 14 February 2008, and Protsenko v. Russia, no. 13151/04, §§ 30-34, 31 July 2008).
• EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 25228/09

  BORSAN c. ROUMANIE

  Par ailleurs, aux yeux de la Cour, seules les erreurs de fait qui ne sont devenues visibles qu'après la fin d'une procédure judiciaire peuvent justifier une dérogation au principe de la sécurité juridique au motif qu'elles n'ont pas pu être corrigées par le biais des voies ordinaires de recours (Pchenitchny c. Russie, no 30422/03, § 26, 14 février 2008, et Stanca Popescu c. Roumanie, no 8727/03, § 104, 7 juillet 2009).
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 15578/03

  YURIY LOBANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 8727/03

  STANCA POPESCU c. ROUMANIE