Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33509/04 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BOURDOV c. RUSSIE (N° 2)
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2, Art. 46 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
Partiellement irrecevable Violation de l'art. 6 Violation de P1-1 Non-violation de l'art. 6 Non-violation de P1-1 Violation de l'art. 13 Etat défendeur tenu de prendre des mesures individuelles Etat défendeur tenu de prendre des mesures générales Préjudice moral ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BURDOV v. RUSSIA (No. 2)
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2, Art. 46 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6 Violation of P1-1 No violation of Art. 6 No violation of P1-1 Violation of Art. 13 Respondent State to take individual measures Respondent State to take measures of a general character Non-pecuniary damage - award ... - Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte
(englisch)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33509/04
- EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 33509/04
- EGMR - 33509/04
Wird zitiert von ... (120) Neu Zitiert selbst (11)
- EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04
S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33509/04
Such measures must also be taken in respect of other persons in the applicant's position, notably by solving the problems that have led to the Court's findings (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000 VIII; Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 120, ECHR 2002 VI; Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, § 94, ECHR 2005-X; and S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 134, ECHR 2008...). - EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33509/04
It therefore requires that the States provide a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an "arguable complaint" under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI). - EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 28957/95
Christine Goodwin ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33509/04
Such measures must also be taken in respect of other persons in the applicant's position, notably by solving the problems that have led to the Court's findings (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000 VIII; Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 120, ECHR 2002 VI; Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, § 94, ECHR 2005-X; and S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 134, ECHR 2008...).
- EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 50425/99
E.G. c. POLOGNE ET 175 AUTRES AFFAIRES DE LA RIVIÈRE BOUG
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33509/04
Indeed, the Court's task, as defined by Article 19, that is to "ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the Convention and the Protocols thereto", is not necessarily best achieved by repeating the same findings in large series of cases (see, mutatis mutandis, E.G. v. Poland (dec.), no. 50425/99, § 27, 23 September 2008). - EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98
SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33509/04
Such measures must also be taken in respect of other persons in the applicant's position, notably by solving the problems that have led to the Court's findings (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000 VIII; Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 120, ECHR 2002 VI; Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, § 94, ECHR 2005-X; and S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 134, ECHR 2008...). - EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96
FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33509/04
It is for the Contracting States to organise their legal systems in such a way that the competent authorities can meet their obligation in this regard (see mutatis mutandis Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 24, ECHR 2000-IV, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 45, ECHR 2000-VII). - EGMR, 03.11.2005 - 63995/00
KUKALO v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33509/04
Nor is it open to a State authority to cite the lack of funds or other resources (such as housing) as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt (see Burdov, cited above, § 35, and Kukalo v. Russia, no. 63995/00, § 49, 3 November 2005). - EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 22000/03
RAYLYAN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33509/04
The reasonableness of such delay is to be determined having regard in particular to the complexity of the enforcement proceedings, the applicant's own behaviour and that of the competent authorities, and the amount and nature of the court award (see Raylyan v. Russia, no. 22000/03, § 31, 15 February 2007). - EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 50003/99
WOLKENBERG AND OTHERS v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33509/04
The object of the pilot-judgment procedure is to facilitate the speediest and most effective resolution of a dysfunction affecting the protection of the Convention rights in question in the national legal order (see Wolkenberg and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 50003/99, § 34, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)). - EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 34884/97
BOTTAZZI c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33509/04
In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the present situation must be qualified as a practice incompatible with the Convention (see Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], no. 34884/97, § 22, ECHR 1999-V). - EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 36494/02
PETRUSHKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10
DIRDIZOV v. RUSSIA
The Court found that, while the possibility of obtaining compensation was not ruled out, the remedy did not offer reasonable prospects of success, in particular because the award was conditional on the establishment of fault on the part of the authorities (see, for instance, Roman Karasev v. Russia, no. 30251/03, §§ 81-85, 25 November 2010; Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 71-79, 17 December 2009; Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, § 52, 28 May 2009; Aleksandr Makarov, cited above, §§ 77 and 87-89; Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, §§ 29 and 30, 10 May 2007; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 109-116, ECHR 2009; and, most recently, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. - EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 30767/05
MARIA ATANASIU ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
La Cour note qu'à la différence des affaires Broniowski et Hutten-Czapska, précitées, dans lesquelles la défaillance dans l'ordre juridique interne a été identifiée pour la première fois, la Cour se prononce dans les présentes affaires après plusieurs arrêts qui ont déjà conclu à la violation des articles 6 § 1 de la Convention et 1 du Protocole no 1 en raison des défaillances du système roumain d'indemnisation ou de restitution (voir, dans le même sens, Bourdov c. Russie (no 2), no 33509/04, §§ 129, CEDH 2009-..., Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov c. Ukraine, no 40450/04, § 83, CEDH 2009-... (extraits)). - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 30.04.2019 - C-556/17
Torubarov - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und …
Vgl. auch EGMR, Urteil vom 15. Januar 2009, Burdov/Russland (Nr. 2) (CE:ECHR:2009:0115JUD003350904, § 68).
- EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48059/06
DIMITROV AND HAMANOV v. BULGARIA
A summary of the principles applicable to pilot judgments may be found in the Court's judgments in the cases of Broniowski (cited above, §§ 188-94), Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 33509/04, §§ 125-28, ECHR 2009-...), Olaru and Others v. Moldova (nos. 476/07, 22539/05, 17911/08 and 13136/07, §§ 49-49, 28 July 2009), Rumpf v. Germany (no. 46344/06, §§ 59-61, 2 September 2010) and Vassilios Athanasiou and Others v. Greece (no. 50973/08, §§ 39-42, 21 December 2010), as well as in the newly adopted Rule 61 of the Rules of Court (which was inserted by the Court on 21 February 2011 and came into force on 1 April 2011). - EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 29920/05
GERASIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The Court also decided to grant the applications priority under Rule 41 and to inform the parties that it was considering the suitability of applying a pilot-judgment procedure (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 125-46, ECHR 2009). - EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10
KORYAK v. RUSSIA
The Court found that, while the possibility of obtaining compensation was not ruled out, the remedy did not offer reasonable prospects of success, in particular because the award was conditional on the establishment of fault on the part of the authorities (see, for instance, Roman Karasev v. Russia, no. 30251/03, §§ 81-85, 25 November 2010; Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 71-79, 17 December 2009; Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, § 52, 28 May 2009; Aleksandr Makarov, cited above, §§ 77 and 87-89; Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, §§ 29 and 30, 10 May 2007; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 109-116, ECHR 2009; and, most recently, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. - EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 37346/05
FINGER v. BULGARIA
A summary of the principles applicable to pilot judgments may be found in the Court's judgments in the cases of Broniowski (cited above, §§ 188-94), Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 33509/04, §§ 125-28, ECHR 2009-...), Olaru and Others v. Moldova (nos. 476/07, 22539/05, 17911/08 and 13136/07, §§ 49-49, 28 July 2009), Rumpf v. Germany (no. 46344/06, §§ 59-61, 2 September 2010) and Vassilios Athanasiou and Others v. Greece (no. 50973/08, §§ 39-42, 21 December 2010), as well as in the newly adopted Rule 61 of the Rules of Court (which was inserted by the Court on 21 February 2011 and came into force on 1 April 2011). - EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 56027/10
RESHETNYAK v. RUSSIA
The Court found that, while the possibility of obtaining compensation was not ruled out, the remedy did not offer reasonable prospects of success, in particular because the award was conditional on the establishment of fault on the part of the authorities (see, for instance, Roman Karasev v. Russia, no. 30251/03, §§ 81-85, 25 November 2010; Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 71-79, 17 December 2009; Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, § 52, 28 May 2009; Aleksandr Makarov, cited above, §§ 77 and 87-89; Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, §§ 29 and 30, 10 May 2007; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 109-116, ECHR 2009; and, most recently, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. - EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 35729/12
BARTA AND DRAJKÓ v. HUNGARY
The Court refers to its case-law concerning the principles applicable to Article 46 of the Convention (see Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey, no. 46347/99, §§ 37-40, 22 December 2005; Cahit Demirel v. Turkey, no. 18623/03, §§ 43-48, 7 July 2009; Ä°zci v. Turkey, no. 42606/05, §§ 94-99, 23 July 2013; and also Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 125-128, ECHR 2009; Olaru and Others v. Moldova, nos. - EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 50132/12
MARIC v. CROATIA
Redress so afforded must be appropriate and sufficient, failing which a party can continue to claim to be a victim of the violation (see, among others, Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 54-56, ECHR 2009, with further references). - EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 41545/06
SEGEDA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 18238/06
YAGNINA v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12
LONIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 16115/13
MARGARETIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 28.05.2014 - 2746/05
KOPNIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 8252/08
DADIANI AND MACHABELI v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 32846/07
DANIEL-P S.A. v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 11373/03
SOBOL AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 21.07.2016 - 24787/05
KHAYBULLAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 21.07.2016 - 20213/05
VAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 21.07.2016 - 4721/06
KOCHIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.06.2015 - 11496/05
PANCHENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 29834/07
OVCHINNIKOVY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 45291/05
PANCHISHIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 29921/07
CHERNIKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 26433/06
BELIKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 12097/05
PETROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 36265/05
PULEVA AND RADEVA v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 10435/08
DINÇER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 10457/08
BERTAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 4397/08
KEMAL TURHAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 10450/08
ISCAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 4562/08
KALIN AND BILGIN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 10458/08
GÜLTEKIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 10443/08
NACI AKKUS AND NECMI AKKUS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 10434/08
ISIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 12.07.2011 - 31462/07
KORKMAZ v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 21578/05
SHLYUYEVY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 37865/04
RUDNITSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 34861/04
KARPACHEVA AND KARPACHEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 43578/06
MATVEYEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 11470/03
ABBASOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 56398/08
AKHMADULLINA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 31.03.2016 - 50346/07
DIMITAR YANAKIEV v. BULGARIA (No. 2)
- EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 38766/07
SUVOROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 33140/07
PYATAKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 36933/07
MIKHEYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 43443/04
CHERVYAKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 24850/06
SHAMIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 3666/06
OSTROUSHKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 21040/06
PROHOROV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 26.08.2014 - 38127/07
VLASOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 20009/07
YURYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 7559/06
KALININ AND DEREVSHCHIKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 5257/06
KODENTSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 30146/04
LOKTEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 17838/07
MASLOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 16200/07
SULTANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 01.04.2014 - 23557/06
MANDRYKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 4383/06
KISHCHENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 34098/06
HADZHOLOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 20415/07
ZUBOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 4026/06
VOLSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 13182/04
KUTEPOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 3282/06
SAMSANKOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 18853/06
SHVAYDAK v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 52817/07
SHISHOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 9517/08
RODNISHCHEVY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 45293/05
POPOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 10118/06
PLEKHANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 46983/06
AVERIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 59026/08
ISAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 16967/10
KALINKIN ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 5734/08
ILYUSHKIN ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 55242/08
CHALYKH v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 35230/07
CHEBOTAREV v. RUSSIA AND OTHER APPLICATIONS
- EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 41187/05
SVISTUNOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 4352/09
KOKURKHOYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 18977/06
MAZULYAN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 25187/07
AGASIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 2259/04
LEVASHKO v. RUSSIA AND OTHERS APPLICATIONS
- EGMR, 29.11.2011 - 9521/07
PROKOFYEVY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 21494/04
SOBOLEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 16596/04
FURSOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 49716/08
ORLOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 45236/04
ZAVYALOV v. RUSSIA AND OTHER APPLICATIONS
- EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 26528/03
KOLOBOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 19463/04
KOLKHIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 32215/05
ANUFRIYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.02.2011 - 16059/04
CHIBISOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 7120/03
LUNINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 33991/02
KRUTOVY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 17395/04
MAIZEL v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 8074/06
BREKHOV AND TYURIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 24169/05
KHALIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 9610/05
BALAGUROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 38738/07
KUZNETSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 4113/05
CHERKASOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 36280/05
LEONOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 41446/02
SHEVCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 11511/03
STOLBOUSHKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.05.2010 - 3215/04
ANISIMOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.11.2009 - 6394/05
USKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 18451/04
DOLBIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 68053/10
LOLOVA AND POPOVA v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 17030/04
ZAKHAROVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 28309/03
SERGEYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 41643/04
TIMOSHIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 4387/08
NECATI EROL v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 40047/04
PANTUSHEVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 16583/04
GRIBANENKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 14290/03
KAZAKEVICH AND OTHER
- EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 7786/09
TRYAPITSYNA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.03.2016 - 23304/05
KONOVALOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 9728/05
BAKIYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 1467/06
GERASIMOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 45710/07
GABDLAKHATOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 2059/05
KHIKHLYA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 8092/02
SAVELYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 4595/02
MURZIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Rechtsprechung
EGMR - 33509/04 |
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33509/04
- EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 33509/04
- EGMR - 33509/04 (anhängig)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (1)
- EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 24395/02
LOSITSKIY v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR - 33509/04
Did the applicant dispose in accordance with Article 13 of effective domestic remedies in order to ensure proper and timely enforcement of the domestic judgments in his favour or to obtain adequate redress for late enforcement (see Lositskiy v. Russia, no. 24395/02, §§ 28-31, 14 December 2006; see also, mutatis mutandis, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 132-160, ECHR 2000-XI)? In particular, was there an effective mechanism, sufficiently established in law and practice, allowing timely payment of adequate compensation for non-pecuniary damage and default interest to the victims of non-enforcement or late enforcement of domestic judgments? Does the possible lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of non-enforcement or late enforcement constitute a systemic problem in the Russian Federation and/or a practice incompatible with the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Bottazzi mentioned above)?.
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 21.09.2016 - 58263/00, 11470/03, 38405/02, 41564/05, 26724/03, 30616/05, 22519/02, 33706/05, 36153/03, 32215/05, 16115/06, 21198/05, 18338/05, 36398/04, 40250/02, 3509/06, 45497/04, 36765/03, 24654/03, 3504/02, 23542/04, 19134/05, 20260/04, 66462/01, 805/03, 33509/04 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
TIMOFEYEV AND 234 OTHER CASES AGAINST THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
TIMOFEIEV ET 234 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA FEDERATION DE RUSSIE
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 58263/00
- EGMR, 23.10.2003 - 58263/00
- EGMR, 21.09.2016 - 58263/00, 11470/03, 38405/02, 41564/05, 26724/03, 30616/05, 22519/02, 33706/05, 36153/03, 32215/05, 16115/06, 21198/05, 18338/05, 36398/04, 40250/02, 3509/06, 45497/04, 36765/03, 24654/03, 3504/02, 23542/04, 19134/05, 20260/04, 66462/01, 805/03, 33509/04
Wird zitiert von ... (18)
- EGMR - 60019/13 (anhängig)
ANTOGNINI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
La requête concerne les approches divergentes entre les tribunaux internes et la Cour quant à la prise en compte de la phase d'exécution d'un jugement dans le cadre de la durée globale de la procédure au sens de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, les arrêts Di Pede c. Italie, 26 septembre 1996, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1996-IV, Hornsby c. Grèce, 19 mars 1997, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1997-II, Metaxas c. Grèce, no 8415/02, 27 mai 2004 et Bourdov c. Russie (no 2), no 33509/04, CEDH 2009 ).Les arrêts du tribunal administratif régional (RG no 874/1992 et no 12212/02) ont-t-ils été exécutés dans leur intégralité ? Dans l'affirmative, l'exécution tardive de ces arrêts a-t-elle porté atteinte au droit des requérants à un tribunal sous l'angle de l'obligation de l'État de se conformer à une décision judiciaire exécutoire tel que garanti par l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (Shmalko c. Ukraine, no 60750/00, § 56, 20 juillet 2004, Bourdov c. Russie (no 2), no 33509/04,15 janvier 2009)?.
L'exécution tardive des arrêts du tribunal administratif régional (RG no 874/1992 et no 12212/02) a-t-elle porté atteinte au droit au respect des biens des requérants prévu par l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 (voir Shmalko c. Ukraine, no 60750/00, § 56, 20 juillet 2004 ; Bourdov c. Russie (no 2), no 33509/04,15 janvier 2009)?.
- EGMR - 66122/11 (anhängig)
BATTISTI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
La requête concerne les approches divergentes entre les tribunaux internes et la Cour quant à la prise en compte de la phase d'exécution d'un jugement dans le cadre de la durée globale de la procédure au sens de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, les arrêts Di Pede c. Italie, 26 septembre 1996, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1996-IV, Hornsby c. Grèce, 19 mars 1997, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1997-II, Metaxas c. Grèce, no 8415/02, 27 mai 2004 et Bourdov c. Russie (no 2), no 33509/04, CEDH 2009).À la lumière de la jurisprudence de la Cour sur le terrain de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (voir notamment Metaxas c. Grèce, no 8415/02, §§ 25-26, 27 mai 2004 et Bourdov c. Russie (no 2), no 33509/04, §§ 65-70 et 72-85, CEDH 2009), la procédure au fond et la procédure d'exécution dont les requérants ont été parties, peuvent-elles être considérées comme deux phases nécessaires d'un seul «procès» ?.
- EGMR - 15587/10 (anhängig)
DIACO c. ITALIE et 2 autres affaires
L'exécution tardive des ordonnances qui reconnaissent le droit des requérants à obtenir le paiement des sommes dues à titre d'aide judiciaire (decreti di pagamento) en raison de l'activité professionnelle exercée a-t-elle porté atteinte à leur droit à un tribunal sous l'angle de l'obligation de l'État de se conformer à une décision judiciaire exécutoire tel que garanti par l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention et au droit au respect des biens prévu par l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 (voir Shmalko c. Ukraine, no 60750/00, § 56, 20 juillet 2004, et Bourdov c. Russie (no 2), no 33509/04, 15 janvier 2009)?.Les requérants avaient-il à leur disposition, comme l'exige l'article 13 de la Convention, un recours interne effectif qui aurait permis de reconnaître les violations alléguées des articles 6 § 1 de la Convention et 1 du Protocole no 1, d'en mettre fin, d'en effacer les conséquences et enfin d'obtenir un redressement approprié (voir, par exemple, Bourdov c. Russie (no 2), no 33509/04, § 96-117, CEDH 2009, Gerasimov et autres c. Russie, nos 29920/05 et 10 autres, 1er juillet 2014, Metaxas c. Grèce, no 8415/02, § 19, 27 mai 2004 et Ventorino c. Italie, no 357/07, § 28, 17 mai 2011)?.
- EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 73798/13
VALADA MATOS DAS NEVES c. PORTUGAL
La Cour a fixé certains critères essentiels permettant de vérifier l'effectivité des recours indemnitaires en matière de durée excessive de procédures judiciaires (voir Bourdov c. Russie (no 2), no 33509/04, § 99, CEDH 2009). - EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 75717/14
BRUDAN c. ROUMANIE
Pour résumer, lorsque l'on recherche si un recours indemnitaire représente un recours « effectif'au sens de l'article 13 de la Convention, les critères dégagés par la jurisprudence de la Cour sont les suivants (Bourdov c. Russie (no 2), no 33509/04, § 99, CEDH 2009, et Valada Matos das Neves, précité, § 73):. - EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 27396/06
SABRI GÜNES c. TURQUIE
Elle donne également effet au principe de subsidiarité qui est à la base du système de la Convention (Bourdov c. Russie (no 2), no 33509/04, § 127, CEDH 2009-...). - EGMR, 09.04.2015 - 65829/12
TCHOKONTIO HAPPI c. FRANCE
Elle rappelle, en effet, qu'aux termes de sa jurisprudence constante, une autorité de l'État ne peut prétexter du manque de fonds ou d'autres ressources pour ne pas honorer, par exemple, une dette fondée sur une décision de justice (Bourdov c. Russie (no 2), no 33509/04, § 70, CEDH 2009 ; Société de gestion du port de Campoloro et Société fermière de Campoloro c. France, no 57516/00, § 62, 26 septembre 2006). - EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 69529/01
PRAVEDNAYA v. RUSSIA
In these circumstances, the Court makes no award under Article 41 of the Convention (see, for example, Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, §§ 67-68, ECHR 2003-X, Timofeyev v. Russia, no. 58263/00, §§ 51-52, 23 October 2003). - EGMR, 22.09.2020 - 13074/07
BALBASHEV v. RUSSIA
In any event, he had failed to exhaust the domestic remedy introduced by the Compensation Act after the adoption of the pilot judgement Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009. - EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 37805/05
COSTACHESCU c. ROUMANIE
La Cour rappelle avoir déjà jugé que le droit à un bail, reconnu par une décision judiciaire définitive, représente une créance suffisamment établie pour constituer un «bien» au sens de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 (Malinovski c. Russie, no 41302/02, § 45, CEDH 2005-VII (extraits) ; Tétériny c. Russie, no 11931/03, § 50, 30 juin 2005 ; Koukalo c. Russie, no 63995/00, § 58, 3 novembre 2005 ; Licu c. Roumanie, no 35077/02, §§ 36-37, 4 mars 2008). - EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 2521/14
CERNICA ET NARTEA c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 37957/15
SOYUPOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.11.2008 - 29798/03
JANTEA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 42774/04
BANAS v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 25716/05
STOYANOVA c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 42921/05
TERESHONOK c. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 3211/16
WAMPACH c. LUXEMBOURG
- EGMR, 31.08.2010 - 36665/03
SURBANOSKA AND OTHERS v.
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 33509/04 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BOURDOV CONTRE LA RUSSIE (N° 2)
Etat défendeur incité à prendre des mesures générales (französisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
C ASE OF BURDOV AGAINST RUSSIA (No. 2)
Respondent State urged to take measures of a general character (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33509/04
- EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 33509/04
- EGMR - 33509/04