Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PRIDATCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6 Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - financial award (Mr Pridatchenko Mr Frolov) Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (Mr Pridatchenko Mr Frolov Mr Sychev) ...

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 2191/03

  Further, the Court reiterates that a "claim" can constitute a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable - for example, by virtue of a court judgment (see Burdov v. Russia, cited above, § 28, and Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, p. 84, § 59).
• EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 43726/02

  KANAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 2191/03

  Until recently, employment disputes between the State and its military personnel were not, as a rule, regarded as "civil" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and thus fell outside of the Court's competence ratione materiae (see Pellegrin v. France [GC], no. 28541/95, §§ 65-67, ECHR 1999-VIII; see also Kanayev v. Russia, no. 43726/02, § 16, 27 July 2006).

• EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 45394/06

  KRSTIC v. SERBIA

  As the Court has held in a number of previous cases, the inability for a successful litigant to have a judgment or a final administrative decision rendered in his favour fully enforced, if that situation persists for a relatively long period of time, may constitute an interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, in the sense of the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among many authorities, Pridatchenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 2191/03, 3104/03, 16094/03 and 24486/03, § 50, 21 June 2007; Burdov v. Russia, cited above, § 40; Ramadhi and Others v. Albania, no. 38222/02, §§ 76-77, 13 November 2007; and Viasu v. Roumania, no. 75951/01, § 60, 9 December 2008).
• EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 11470/03

  ABBASOV v. RUSSIA

  In 2001-2004 judgments delivered against the public authorities were executed in accordance with a special procedure established, inter alia, by Government's Decree No. 143 of 22 February 2001 and, subsequently, by Decree No. 666 of 22 September 2002, entrusting execution to the Ministry of Finance (see further details in Pridatchenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 2191/03, 3104/03, 16094/03 and 24486/03, §§ 33-39, 21 June 2007).
• EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 750/02

  KOTLYAROV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see, among other authorities, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III and Pridatchenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 2191/03 et seq., 21 June 2007).