Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SOBELIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (46)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.05.2004 - 33408/03

  DENISOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 30672/03

  However, under the new CCivP the President's power to overrule decisions of other judges refusing to initiate supervisory-review proceedings is not subject to any time-limits (see Denisov v. Russia (dec.), no. 33408/03, 6 May 2004).
• EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 55609/00

  SITOKHOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 30672/03

  Such a quashing is regarded in the case-law as an instantaneous act (see Sitokhova v. Russia (dec.), no. 55609/00, 2 September 2004).
• EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 74104/01

  IVANOVA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 30672/03

  Thus, the eventual outcome of the post-quashing proceedings is not directly relevant for the Court's analysis of the complaint about the annulment of the judgment in the applicant's favour (see Ivanova v. Ukraine, no. 74104/01, §§ 35-38, 13 September 2005), unless, as a result of the subsequent proceedings, the applicant obtained more than he had had before the supervisory review which is clearly not the case.

• EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 24247/04

  PRISYAZHNIKOVA AND DOLGOPOLOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 30672/03

  However, it appears that at the relevant time the judicial practice regarded the powers of the President, conferred with him by virtue of Articles 381-6 and 383 of CCivP, as unlimited in time (see Prisyazhnikova and Dolgopolov v. Russia, no. 24247/04, §§ 7-11, 28 December 2006), which created uncertainty for the party who won the case.
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 30672/03

  The Court reiterates that where an applicant dies during the examination of a case his or her heirs of next kin may in principle pursue the application on his or her behalf (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 41, ECHR 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 21417/04

  SHIRYAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 30672/03

  Furthermore, in two Russian cases concerning non-enforcement of court judgments in the applicant's favour, the Court recognised the right of the relatives of the deceased applicant to pursue the application (see Shiryayeva v. Russia, no. 21417/04, § 8, 13 July 2006; see also Shvedov v. Russia, no. 69306/01, 20 October 2005, where the Court implicitly recognised locus standi of the applicant's son).
• EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 69306/01

  SHVEDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 30672/03

  Furthermore, in two Russian cases concerning non-enforcement of court judgments in the applicant's favour, the Court recognised the right of the relatives of the deceased applicant to pursue the application (see Shiryayeva v. Russia, no. 21417/04, § 8, 13 July 2006; see also Shvedov v. Russia, no. 69306/01, 20 October 2005, where the Court implicitly recognised locus standi of the applicant's son).
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 14502/04

  NELYUBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 30672/03

  The Constitutional Court referred in this respect to the case of Nelyubin v. Russia, decided by this Court (no. 14502/04, 2 November 2006).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.03.2017 - 52854/99

  RYABYKH AND 112 OTHER CASES AGAINST RUSSIA

  30672/03+.

  30672/03.

• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 8549/06

  [ENG]

  In the case of Sobelin and Others v. Russia (nos. 30672/03 et seq., §§ 43-45, 3 May 2007) concerning non-enforcement and subsequent quashing of the court judgments in the applicants' favour, the Court recognised the right of the relatives of the deceased applicant to pursue the application.
• EGMR, 05.04.2016 - 5623/09

  TRAPEZNIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Consequently, final and enforceable judgments could still be reviewed over a far longer period on relatively minor grounds (see, among many other authorities, Prisyazhnikova and Dolgopolov v. Russia, no. 24247/04, § 25, 28 September 2006; Sobelin and Others v. Russia, nos. 30672/03 et al., §§ 56-61, 3 May 2007; and Kulkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 25114/03 et al., § 31, 8 January 2009).

• EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 34616/02

  [ENG]

  30672/03 et al., §§ 67-68, 3 May 2007; Kulkov and Others, cited above, § 35; and Kazakevich and 9 other "Army Pensioners" cases v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 2068/03

  KONDRASHOV v. RUSSIA

  30672/03 et al, §§ 67-68, 3 May 2007).
• EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 14290/03

  KAZAKEVICH AND OTHER "ARMY PENSIONERS" CASES v. RUSSIA

  The relevant domestic law governing the supervisory review procedure at the material time is summed up in the Court's judgment in the case of Sobelin and Others (see Sobelin and Others v. Russia, nos. 30672/03 et al., §§ 33-42, 3 May 2007).
• EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 11093/07

  [ENG]

  For the relevant provisions on the supervisory-review proceedings contained in the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation see, among many other authorities, the Court's judgment in the case of Sobelin and Others v. Russia (nos. 30672/03 et seq., § 34, 3 May 2007).
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 25114/03

  KULKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  30672/03, 30673/03, 30678/03, 30682/03, 30692/03, 30707/03, 30713/03, 30734/03, 30736/03, 30779/03, 32080/03 and 34952/03, §§ 33-42, 3 May 2007).
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 38585/04

  [ENG]

  The Court observes that the principles insisting that a final judicial decision must not be called into question and should be enforced represent two aspects of the same general concept, namely the right to a court (see Boris Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 30671/03, §§ 41-42, 15 February 2007; and Sobelin and Others v. Russia, no. 30672/03 et seq., §§ 67-68, 3 May 2007).
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 11421/13

  KABARDOKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 33 other applications

  As regards the applicants' complaint under Article 6 of the Convention, the Court notes, that in the applications at hand the restoration of time-limit for appeal was closely related to the principle of legal certainty and of the "right to a court" (see, for instance, Sobelin and Others v. Russia, nos. 30672/03 and 11 others, § 67, 3 May 2007).
• EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 2982/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 43327/02

  TSAREVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.11.2009 - 29612/09

  MARTYNETS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.09.2022 - 45580/15

  TREGUET v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 76648/12

  VOROKOV v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 9117/04

  NOSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 42538/02

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 14390/05

  KUCHEROV AND FROLOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 5855/09

  PUZRINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 53664/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 20857/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 57019/08

  PEGOV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 53637/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 53678/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 12157/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 25.02.2010 - 7944/05

  MORDACHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 27440/03

  FINKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 27114/04

  KHOTULEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 17472/04

  BODROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 1407/05

  IVANOV AND PETRUSHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 36325/05

  BEBUTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 43603/09

  PULYAYEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 11.06.2015 - 30711/03

  KOBERNIK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 47687/07

  GORANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 28309/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 25.02.2010 - 24178/05

  KOROVINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 11470/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 11227/05

  ABDULLAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 23333/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 24559/04

  TALYSHEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 22156/04

  MIKHAYLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 42600/05

  OOO LINK OIL SPB v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 5744/07

  KOSTENKO AND KASMYLIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.07.2009 - 30709/03

  KLIMENKO AND OSTAPENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 20023/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 44381/04

  VOTINTSEVA v. RUSSIA