Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GORODNICHEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 10, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 17, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (2)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EKMR, 13.07.1983 - 9502/81

  S. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 32275/03

  The Court "must examine each application in the light of its particular facts and from the standpoint of whether the applicant's interest at stake is of such a nature that it can be transferred to the heir, and, further, whether considerations relating to the general interest require the continued examination of the application" (S. v. the United Kingdom, no. 9502/81, Commission decision of 13 July 1983, DR 34, p. 103).
• EKMR, 06.05.1986 - 10474/83

  VEIT c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 32275/03

  In the examination of this question, special consideration should be given to the intentions expressed by the applicant's legal successor as well as to the nature of the complaint (see Veit v. Germany, no. 10474/83, Commission decision of 6 May 1986, Decisions and Reports (DR) 47, p. 116, with further references).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 47687/07

  GORANOV v. BULGARIA

  On the other hand, heirs of deceased applicants cannot claim a general right to pursue the proceedings on their own behalf (see Gorodnichev v. Russia (dec.), no. 32275/03, 15 November 2007).

  Where the issue of standing is to be determined, the Court must examine each application in the light of its particular facts and from the standpoint of whether the applicant's interest at stake is of such a nature that it can be transferred to the heir, and, further, whether considerations relating to the general interest require the continued examination of the application (see Gorodnichev v. Russia (dec.), no. 32275/03, 15 November 2007; S. v. the United Kingdom, no. 9502/81, Commission decision of 13 July 1983, DR 34, p. 103; and Veit v. Germany, no. 10474/83, Commission decision of 6 May 1986, Decisions and Reports (DR) 47, p. 116, with further references).

• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 8549/06

  [ENG]

  In these circumstances, the Court may admittedly have difficulties in finding that the applicant's relatives were affected by the quashing and accepts that the legal certainty complaint under Article 6 in the context of the supervisory-review proceedings, if raised separately, might not be automatically considered transferable (compare, mutatis mutandis, Stankevich, cited above; Gorodnichev v. Russia (dec.), no. 32275/03, 15 November 2007; Biç and Others, cited above, § 22; and Georgia Makri and Others v. Greece (dec.), no. 5977/03, 24 March 2005).
• EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 23593/03

  BELSKIY v. RUSSIA

  However, in one case the Court held that the late applicant's wife had no legitimate interest in pursuing his complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the alleged unfairness of the domestic court proceedings in which he sought to "erase" his criminal record (see Gorodnichev v. Russia (dec.), no. 32275/03, 15 November 2007).

• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 76648/12

  VOROKOV v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

  The applicant's late husband's interest in compensation, being a strictly personal one, could not have been transferred to heirs (see Gorodnichev v. Russia (dec.), no. 32275/03, 15 November 2007).
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 53664/08

  [ENG]

  Where the issue of standing is to be determined, the Court must examine each application in the light of its particular facts and from the standpoint of whether the applicant's interest at stake is of such a nature that it can be transferred to the heir, and, further, whether considerations relating to the general interest require the continued examination of the application (see Gorodnichev v. Russia (dec.), no. 32275/03, 15 November 2007; S. v. the United Kingdom, no. 9502/81, Commission decision of 13 July 1983, DR 34, p. 103; and Veit v. Germany, no. 10474/83, Commission decision of 6 May 1986, Decisions and Reports (DR) 47, p. 116, with further references).
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 53678/08

  [ENG]

  Where the issue of standing is to be determined, the Court must examine each application in the light of its particular facts and from the standpoint of whether the applicant's interest at stake is of such a nature that it can be transferred to the heir, and, further, whether considerations relating to the general interest require the continued examination of the application (see Gorodnichev v. Russia (dec.), no. 32275/03, 15 November 2007; S. v. the United Kingdom, no. 9502/81, Commission decision of 13 July 1983, DR 34, p. 103; and Veit v. Germany, no. 10474/83, Commission decision of 6 May 1986, Decisions and Reports (DR) 47, p. 116).
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 53637/08

  [ENG]

  Where the issue of standing is to be determined, the Court must examine each application in the light of its particular facts and from the standpoint of whether the applicant's interest at stake is of such a nature that it can be transferred to the heir, and, further, whether considerations relating to the general interest require the continued examination of the application (see Gorodnichev v. Russia (dec.), no. 32275/03, 15 November 2007; S. v. the United Kingdom, no. 9502/81, Commission decision of 13 July 1983, DR 34, p. 103; and Veit v. Germany, no. 10474/83, Commission decision of 6 May 1986, Decisions and Reports (DR) 47, p. 116).
• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 18853/06

  SHVAYDAK v. RUSSIA

  In these circumstances, it was for the applicant's daughter to substantiate that she could claim to have a sufficient legal interest to make a complaint about the alleged violation of the legal certainty principle in the proceedings which occurred after the applicant's death (see, in so far as relevant, Belskiy v. Russia (dec.), no. 23593/03, 26 November 2009; Verigin v. Russia (dec.), no. 53678/08, 25 November 2010; and Gorodnichev v. Russia (dec.), no. 32275/03, 15 November 2007).